Vonnegut released the book Slaughterhouse-Five in 1969.
Below is a letter he wrote to his family that May from a repatriation camp, in which he informs them of his capture and survival. Transcript follows.
Recommended Reading: Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five.



Transcript
FROM:
Pfo. K. Vonnegut, Jr.,
12102964 U. S. Army.
TO:
Kurt Vonnegut,
Williams Creek,
Indianapolis, Indiana.
Dear people:
I'm told that you were probably never informed that I was anything other than "missing in action." Chances are that you also failed to receive any of the letters I wrote from Germany. That leaves me a lot of explaining to do -- in precis:
I've been a prisoner of war since December 19th, 1944, when our division was cut to ribbons by Hitler's last desperate thrust through Luxemburg and Belgium. Seven Fanatical Panzer Divisions hit us and cut us off from the rest of Hodges' First Army. The other American Divisions on our flanks managed to pull out: We were obliged to stay and fight. Bayonets aren't much good against tanks: Our ammunition, food and medical supplies gave out and our casualties out-numbered those who could still fight - so we gave up. The 106th got a Presidential Citation and some British Decoration from Montgomery for it, I'm told, but I'll be damned if it was worth it. I was one of the few who weren't wounded. For that much thank God.
Well, the supermen marched us, without food, water or sleep to Limberg, a distance of about sixty miles, I think, where we were loaded and locked up, sixty men to each small, unventilated, unheated box car. There were no sanitary accommodations -- the floors were covered with fresh cow dung. There wasn't room for all of us to lie down. Half slept while the other half stood. We spent several days, including Christmas, on that Limberg siding. On Christmas eve the Royal Air Force bombed and strafed our unmarked train. They killed about one-hundred-and-fifty of us. We got a little water Christmas Day and moved slowly across Germany to a large P.O.W. Camp in Muhlburg, South of Berlin. We were released from the box cars on New Year's Day. The Germans herded us through scalding delousing showers. Many men died from shock in the showers after ten days of starvation, thirst and exposure. But I didn't.
Under the Geneva Convention, Officers and Non-commissioned Officers are not obliged to work when taken prisoner. I am, as you know, a Private. One-hundred-and-fifty such minor beings were shipped to a Dresden work camp on January 10th. I was their leader by virtue of the little German I spoke. It was our misfortune to have sadistic and fanatical guards. We were refused medical attention and clothing: We were given long hours at extremely hard labor. Our food ration was two-hundred-and-fifty grams of black bread and one pint of unseasoned potato soup each day. After desperately trying to improve our situation for two months and having been met with bland smiles I told the guards just what I was going to do to them when the Russians came. They beat me up a little. I was fired as group leader. Beatings were very small time: -- one boy starved to death and the SS Troops shot two for stealing food.
On about February 14th the Americans came over, followed by the R.A.F. their combined labors killed 250,000 people in twenty-four hours and destroyed all of Dresden -- possibly the world's most beautiful city. But not me.
After that we were put to work carrying corpses from Air-Raid shelters; women, children, old men; dead from concussion, fire or suffocation. Civilians cursed us and threw rocks as we carried bodies to huge funeral pyres in the city.
When General Patton took Leipzig we were evacuated on foot to ('the Saxony-Czechoslovakian border'?). There we remained until the war ended. Our guards deserted us. On that happy day the Russians were intent on mopping up isolated outlaw resistance in our sector. Their planes (P-39's) strafed and bombed us, killing fourteen, but not me.
Eight of us stole a team and wagon. We traveled and looted our way through Sudetenland and Saxony for eight days, living like kings. The Russians are crazy about Americans. The Russians picked us up in Dresden. We rode from there to the American lines at Halle in Lend-Lease Ford trucks. We've since been flown to Le Havre.
I'm writing from a Red Cross Club in the Le Havre P.O.W. Repatriation Camp. I'm being wonderfully well feed and entertained. The state-bound ships are jammed, naturally, so I'll have to be patient. I hope to be home in a month. Once home I'll be given twenty-one days recuperation at Atterbury, about $600 back pay and -- get this -- sixty (60) days furlough.
I've too damned much to say, the rest will have to wait, I can't receive mail here so don't write.
May 29, 1945
Love,
Kurt - Jr.
97 comments:
that's nothing - Once I had to live a few days without internet OR cable TV.
Horrible. I hope we never come to this again in Europe.
Wow! I'm going to get a copy of Slaughter House Five and read it. I can't imagine surviving such treatment. This letter gives you an excellent view of war from a private's eyes from the ground. The glorious acts get brought down a notch or two. However, I get the feeling that he understands that the bombings were necessary to win the war even though they made his life hell and killed plenty of people on our side.
This is a great epilogue to reading Slaughterhouse Five, they should publish it in the book. Thanks.
The only problems with saying the bombings were necessary or helpful in winning the war are that they didn't bomb the major bridges or the industrial centers outside of the city. It was mainly done to demoralize the Germans with the (side) affect of killing thousands of civilians. We can't go back and relive the fear of losing the war, but it definitely looks fairly unjustified and useless.
VM, you will learn when you read Slaughterhouse 5, that Vonnegut was vehemently opposed to the bombing of Dresden.
I think the copy of SH5 I have actually contains this letter. Cat's Cradle is one of my fav works of his. Crazy as a crap house rat, but a genius none the less/
According to Wikipedia 'a letter that was written to his family during WWII' is published in Armageddon In Retrospect
I love Kurt Vonnegut. I was fortunate enough to spend an afternoon with him back in the 1980s, just the two of us talking and smoking cigarettes. He gave me his autograph and I have it and pictures taken that day framed, hanging in my office where I see it every day. This letter is both dreadful and wonderful at the same time...pure Vonnegut to be sure. Makes me realize how long it's been since I read SH5. Everyone should read this book at least once. But not me.
So it goes
It has all the wit and charm of any of his writing, with the added horror of being true; one expects nothing less from one of the greatest minds of his generation.
Thanks for posting this Vonnegut gem. What archives or special collections is this typescript from? The Lilly Library at Indiana University?
Vonnegut Manuscripts
http://indiana.edu/~liblilly/lilly/mss/subfile/vonnegutinv.html
The WW2 Allied bombings of civilians in both Germany and Japan was a war crime. Period. No good reason but the collective insanity of war. SH5 makes that clear. My Grandfather who was in Patton's army as it moved across Europe said that Joseph Heller's "Catch 22" was the closest to describing the truth of WW2 and modern war in general. What we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan are war crimes as well. Most of the dead are civilians.
Dresden was a tragedy, but Coventry also. Speaking for the now dead in Allied Europe, we are all sad for the civilian dead, but remember, it worked both ways. My lovely darlings were fortunate to live through it all, but forever damaged.
Thank you for posting this powerful document.
I don't believe Dresden was a war crime. It's like saying one soldier shooting another is murder - true, when taken out of context.
Dresden was an inevitable action against the Germans after the atrocities they had committed - destroying a single city compared to the attempted genocide involving millions is, in my book, getting off lightly - and you can't start claiming Geneva rules or similar when you've just spent several years cheerfully ignoring them while trying to take over the world and wipe out the people you don't like.
Neither was Japan a war crime. Lots of people will jump on the anti-nuclear bandwagon and shriek about how inhumane the bombings were, and the arguments against them usually involve the estimated number of people the Allies would have had to kill if they had followed a traditional ground invasion plan. However, what the anti-nuclear brigade cannot answer is this - if dropping a nuclear bomb on a civilian area was so outrageous/ inhumane/ etc. - why did the Allies have to drop *two*?
These are the sort of facts that get ignored when folks want to push their own agenda. Especially once all who were physically present are dead and can't argue.
goodness, what are you argueing about? war in itself is a big mistake. it makes civilians pay for the ruthless activities and mistakes of their governments and lobbies. while some make a lot of money and rub their hands, those who don't possess are continuously brainwashed and used.
Justifying war is like giving the rich men the go-ahead. The poor fight and die for the benefit of whom? The rich and in-power. Screw terrorism and genocide, it's all personal problems of rich, powerful men, blown up to global proportions.
What an amazingly powerful letter this is.
SH5 is probably in my top 3 books ever. Kudos to whoever posted "and so it goes" above!
Wow. I did not know this about KV.
Slaughterhouse 5 is a great movie and book.
"But not me"
ha! and the world was a much better place because of it.
"War itself is a big mistake."
I think the point of the "so it goes" refrain is to draw attention to the inevitability of it all, like Tralfamidorians ending the universe even though they know what the consequences of their experiments are going to be long before they do it. Was Vonnegut mocking fatalism or making a genuine statement about the inevitable suffering we inflict on one another in this life? Hard to say.
But I feel pretty confident in saying that KV wouldn't endorse finger-pointing or a retaliatory "but they killed millions of people" mindset. Killing 250,000 people for no tactical purpose in order to bend the knee of the enemy is pretty barbaric no matter how you cut it, whether in your mind they deserved it or not. War is hell, as they say. Aaannnddd so it goes
I am long overdue for a re-read of Kurts novels and essay collections. The simple, yet poignant "But not me" shows how fine a writer he was. Not so very long ago Slaughterhouse 5 was banned from many libraries and publicly burned. It frightened and outraged many who believed in America, but really didn't. Many shy from the ugly bitterness of truth and beauty. But not me.
Dresden was flattened because it was a previously untouched city, still a place of pride for the people of Germany, and its destruction would cause great ripples.
It was also flattened for revenge.
Very few Britons shed tears for Dresden, especially those amidst the ruins of Coventry, Manchester, London's east end, and countless other targets of Nazi attrition. Few surviving residents of Stalingrad or Leningrad would have had much sympathy, either. Hiroshima was a likewise relatively untouched city, devastated by bombing. The act of destroying a city was an act of finality - it was the consummate statement of the ability to unleash apocalypse unless there was unconditional capitulation.
Slaughterhouse 5 was an excellent book, the film was moderately well done. WWII is replete with stories of the little guy as well as the big picture. KV's story is engaging, and a constant reminder of war's nature. That we still have wars only serves to prove there is no end to human stupidity, exacerbated perhaps by the inability of many to learn the old axiom that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
As written by todays generation:
DAR PP:
I'M 2LD THAT U WERE PROLLY NVR IN4MED THAT I WAC NETHNG ODR THAN \"MIA.\" CHANCEC R THAT U ALCO FAILED 2 RECEIVE NE OF D L1ERC I WROTE FROM GERMNE. THAT LEAVEC ME A LOT OF EXPLAINING 2 DO -- IN PRECIC:
I'VE BEN A PRIC1R OF WAR CINCE DCEMBR 19TH, 1944, WHEN OUR DIVICION WAC CUT 2 RIBBONC BY HITLER'C LACT DCPER8 THRUCT THROUGH LUXEMBURG N BLGIUM.
It's wonderful how the comment thread starts off with the douchenozzle jonrahoi and his grade-school comment ...and then quickly there are folks who have actually read Vonnegut and know what is going-on.
I fear for the new generation of post-MTV illiterates.
Coventry killed tens of thousands. The Anglo-Americans likely killed 400,000 plus Germans and 300,000 plus Japanese in their "strategic bombing." Curtis LeMay should have been tried with the rest at Nuremberg, along with not a few other Brits, Americans and Soviets.
WWII was a nasty thing. The Devil won that war.
Everytime I think I can't grow any more respect for that motherfucker, I find another one of his essay's online, or this incredible peice.
arnab, since we're praising a writer here, I think I'll remind you that the plural of essay doesn't carry an apostrophe, and that the correct spelling is piece. You know, "I before E except after C, and when sounded like A, as in neighbor and weigh." You're welcome.
Where the heck does this fascination with Vonnegut suddenly come from? He's all over the web now, and I don't get it. He was a one-note hack. His novels were boring, repetitive, and unimaginative.
Polite reminder to grinder: When you type, you're supposed to put two spaces between terminals and initials. Maybe you did type it in that way, but it doesn't look like it.
Apologies to grinder. Now that my own post has been published, I see that two spaces look like one.
You're a one note hack. Have you even read any of his books? What have you written?
Poo tee weet?
I have no idea if he meant to write it that way, but the way he followed that litany of abuses with a paragraph starting "Under the Geneva Conventions..."
Tremendous use of understatement, if that was his intent.
Definitely a neat read, but it doesn't change my opinion of SH5 or that piece of shit Billy Pilgrim. I have never hated a character more in any book I've ever read...maybe that's a sign of an exceptional author, but it soured me on Vonnegut. I even read Cat's Cradle, just to give him another shot, with no such luck.
We only need one war. Class War.
As for the "two spaces after a terminal and before an initital" comment: wrong. That rule is based in the mechanics of the typewriter. You no more need to follow it than you need to use correction fluid to correct your typos.
Although correction fluid would come in handy to change "inititial" to "initial." Bit of a pain to get off of the monitor, though.
Only the jew won World War 2
"Only the jew won World War 2"
Is there a moderator here?
Asshole
hey who let mel gibson out of his padded confessional?
I HAVE SO MUCH BETTER GRAMMAR THAN YOU I CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE IT RAAAAAGHHHHHH
Wasn't too fond of SH5 either. I still read it through, it was good, but not what I thought it would be. Though I loved Cat's Cradle.
If you're willing to give KV yet another go, I suggest his collection of short stories "Welcome to the Monkey House." They're pretty varied, so if you don't like one you can skip 5-15 pages and read another.
Also, it has most of his more known shorter works--so you will have some common ground should it come up in conversation.
Did the germans provide him with sunscreen?
The thing that really sticks out for me are the 3 paragraphs where he states his fortitude and blessings for being among the survivors.
"Many men died from shock in the showers after ten days of starvation, thirst and exposure. But I didn't."
"…destroyed all of Dresden -- possibly the world's most beautiful city. But not me."
"Their planes (P-39's) strafed and bombed us, killing fourteen, but not me."
Love this man's writing.
Sunscreen?
KV famously said "The bombing of Dresden did not shorten the war by one second. Only one person ever got any benefit from Dresden, and that is me."
In another interview he mentioned that he earned $1 or $2 per person killed, but I can't find the quote.
I think some comments would have made Kurt Vonnegut happy and some would have made him say 'so it goes'. So it goes.
He is a great writer in many ways.
The "sunscreen" comment is from a commencement (?) address that Vonnegut supposedly made in which he is reputed to have advised all present to wear sunscreen. However although the text of the address was widely circulated by overenthusiastic aunts etc., It was not in fact by Vonnegut.
I never heard of KV before. Just found a link in an old radio usergroup.
250,000 killed in Dresden is false, about 50,000 is a more realistic number. Anyhow the exact numbers are unknown as Dresden was flodded with refugies from eastern Germany. Bombing Dresden was probably a war crime the only intention was to demoralize Germany. War crimes were never brought to court for those who won the war. Maybe this should be changed.
Thanks for the post. Most, if not all, war movies never covered stuff like this, when I was growing up.
Read "Armaggedon in Retrospect" by Vonnegut. It has the letter in it and it was published after he died. Slaughterhouse Five is probably one of the best books I've read. Please everyone read it, and read all of his books he was a magical writer and will make you laugh out loud, sigh, and just plain feel good while you are reading anything written by him.
Were he not dead, Vonnegut would be well pleased that he is so fondly remembered by the internet generation for the rousing "sunscreen" speech. Still, dead and all, his corpse can't help but have a smile on its lips.
Forgive me, I stole the first two paragraphs of this wonderful post so that I could educate my teenagers at the library (I'm a librarian). I included the link so they could read Vonnegut's letter, but I felt that your introduction so perfectly captured the situation, I was loath to rewrite it.
You may find the post here: chelsealibrary.org/teen_blog/
Thanks for the post and discussion. Even Mel Gibson.
Poor Old Edgar Derby!
Oh wow! I had no idea Kurt Vonnegut was in my dad's infantry division. I learned something new today.
The sunscreen speech is an urban legend. Vonnegut never wrote it or said it.
To those decrying the fire bombing of Dresden and the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, in comments responding to Vonnegut's letter:
Where is your outrage over the Gemans' fire bombing of Coventry? Where is your outrage over the Germans' carpet bombing of London, Portsmouth, and all the rest of south England? Where is your outrage over the Germans' buzz bombs? Where is your outrage over the Germans' V-2 rockets? Where is your outrage over the seige of Stalingrad? Where is your outrage over the Holocaust? Where is your outrage over the brutal invasion and subjagation of Poland? Where is your outrage over the Germans' determined slaughter of any who opposed them or disagreed with the Nazis? Where is your outrage over the Germans working POWs to death?
Where is your outrage over the Japanese "Rape of Nanking"? Where is your outrage over the Japanese brutal invasion of Mongolia? Where is your outrage over the Japanese brutal invasion of Korea? Where is your outrage over the Japanese brutal invasion of the Philipines? Where is your outrage over the Bataan Death March? Where is your outrage over Japanese Kamikazes? Where is your outrage over Japanese insistence their populace fight to the last child in a war they started? Where is your outrage over the Japanese working POWs to death?
These atrocities and a multitude more committed by the Japanese and Germans, whose populaces chose to elect and support governements that started WWII, whose populace majority supported their countries expansionist aggression and brutal invasion and subjegation of other peoples in other countries, whose majority populace supported the mass murder of other peoples, were all committed first by the Japanese and Germans.
Were the tactics used by the Allies to defend against the Germans and Japanese and fight to defeat both their militaries and their supportive civilian populations lethal? Yes. When faced with being overrun and exterminated by the enemies who attacked and started that terrible war, they used all means they could to retaliate and defeat their enemies.
Why, I ask, do you only condemn the fire bombing of Dresden, the dropping of the two atomic bombs, the actions of those defending themselves and doing their damnedest to defeat the aggressors? Where then is your moral outrage over the sins of those who started and perpetuated all that slaughter?????
MRM
I don't think people pointing out the atrocities of Dresden/etc. aren't outraged at the atrocities of Germany/Japan/anyone else. It's just tough to fit the totality of outrage in just a little comment box.
Saying that the actions of the German and Japanese military justified the killing of German and Japanese civilians is the EXACT same reasoning that Al Qaeda uses for the killing of American civilians today. I highly doubt that you would say that 9/11 was justified based on the American military actions in Muslim lands.
I firmly believe it is wrong to kill civilians, regardless of their political affiliations. Likewise, it is also wrong to punish a civilian populace for their governments' actions. The western world punished Germany severely for WW1, and look what happened: Hitler and WW2.
Saying that civilians deserved to die in Hiroshima and Dresden makes you no better than the military commanders who ordered the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Coventry, the Bataan Death March, and the Final Solution.
It's interesting to note that Curtis LeMay, the architect of the firebombing of Tokyo (which likely killed more than the two atomic bombs) was quite realistic about what he was doing; he remarked more than once that, had things gone the other way, he would certainly have been tried, with some justification, as a war criminal. (the quote is somewhere in Rhodes' masterpiece "Dark Sun", about the H-bomb.) Terrible things were done during the war on all sides, but at the end of the day, I'm very glad our side won. That doesn't stop me from condemning the terrible things (like the Dresden firebombing) that our side did.
Some people look at things like WWII and are content to this day with the mental categories provided them: "Germans." "Japs." "Allies."
And so on.
The whole point of Kurt Vonnegut is that he noticed that people might see things differently if they wanted to. "Rich" and "poor" are definitely good candidates for a different way of looking at it. Anonymous war apologist, you should go read some Howard Zinn.
. . . or Heinrich Boll (umlaut not available), another wonderful chain-smoking writer who was drafted into the war, but on the German side.
Let's see, Al-Qaeda attacked Western nations, including the U.S. Germany and Japan attacked other nations. But it is the victims of those attacks, i.e. the U.S., which is the "bad guy" for defending themselves? Ah yes, always easier to blame the victims of bullies, be it school children on the playground, than to place responsibility on the bullies/attackers for their actions which spawn the entire cycle of evil violence. Typically politically correct reasoning. I must congratulate those who have drunk the pc Koolaid.
MRM
I think the point about Al-Qaida etc. was that they (AQ that is) feel that USA/West is attacking them (The Muslims that is), and they are merely retaliating. They are not talking about concrete, physical attacks, but more like propping up corrupt governments, meddling in to their affairs, and supporting Israel.
As to German (and Japanese) war-crimes.... Yes, they did plenty of those. But the point is that in some ways the war-crimes trials were double-standards. Some of the things Germans were accused of was also done by the Allied. But only Germans were dragged to court. And it should be noted that only Germany was accused of waging a war of aggression, while Soviet Union was not... Allied also thought about putting Germans on trial for the Blitz, but they realized that then the Allied would be blamed for carpet-bombing Germany and Japan as well.
Of course we are outraged by what the Axis did during the war. But the point it that they were tried, judged and punished for those things. Allied did many of the same things, yet they were treated differently. Why?
Probably because the Axis started the war, were the aggressors, and in the end were the losers.
Rightly, most people today understand that the peoples and governments of the WWII Axis powers are in no way responsible for the actions committed by those nations 70 years ago. When will people grant the same valid viewpoint to the peoples and nations of the Allied powers?
As to Al Qaeda, ah yes, when one wishes to whip up the uninformed and unite them in righteous indignation and violence it is always beneficial to repeat oft and loudly The Big Lie that "we are the oppressed, we are under attack, we must wipe out the other side." Gee, we don't like your politics and policies we will claim we are the victims, initiate and perpetuate violence, mayhem, and mass murder then claim we are the victims.
Grossly simplified, it's like the school yard bully crying foul when finally punched back by his victims, proclaiming "it all started when he hit me back."
Were many of the actions of the Allies in WWII vicious, heinous, retaliatory, and horrendeous? Surely. Were they wise? Not necessarily. Were they understandable and human? Yes.
Should we learn from the past? Yes, lest we repeat the mistakes of the past.
Should we wallow in endless self recriminations because our forbears chose certain military options in defense of themselves during a terrible war? No.
In answer to your question why the Allies were treated differently -- because they managed to win victory over those who attacked them. Had the Axis powers achieved victory, then the Allies would have been hauled into court and deemed guilty and suffering punishment while the Axis victors proclaimed their righteousness and moral high ground, gilding over all their grievious and murderous sins of commission and omission. And thus has the history of mankind always been.
MRM
Quote by another Anonymous: "Saying that civilians deserved to die in Hiroshima and Dresden makes you no better than the military commanders who ordered the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Coventry, the Bataan Death March, and the Final Solution."
Excuse me, I did NOT say the civilians of Hiroshima and Dresden deserved to die!!!
But I do thank you for proving my point about those who have drunk the pc Koolaid rather than understand what is actually said and understand it in context.
MRM
So it's OK to do terrible things as long as you win the war? By that logic, the only reason we deplore rape on Nanking and other atrocities done by the Japanese and Germans is because they lost the war. If you are on the winning side, it's perfectly OK to do terrible things? If you happen to lose, THEN those things are considered bad?
Like I said, allied did many of the things Axis were accused of, but Allied were not charged with those things, Axis were. Double-standards? Victors Justice? Might equals right?
Let's look at Soviet Union, shall we? They made a deal with Nazi-Germany (Molotov-Ribbentrop-pact). They invaded Poland and Baltic countries. They attacked Finland (which caused my wifes grandparents to lose all their posessions, drove my wifes grandmother insane and killed my grandfather as he was fighting the invaders). But all that is perfectly acceptable because they were on the winning side? It was wrong for Germany to invade Poland, but it was OK for Soviet Union to invade Poland? It was wrong for Germans to massacre people, yet no-one cared when Russians did the same to Poles in Katyn.
Why don't we look at these things objectively? Crime is a crime, regardless that did your country happen to be on the winning side or not.
I'm NOT going to claim that GermanY/Japen were victims or something like that. They did terrible things, and they were justly punished for those things. But it's morally wrong to punish some people for certain actions, while letting some other people do those very same things without any punishment.
No, "but we won the war!" is not a valid excuse.
Gee, do you actually read what others post or merely assume what they mean???
I wrote, and I quote, "Were many of the actions of the Allies in WWII vicious, heinous, retaliatory, and horrendeous? Surely. Were they wise? Not necessarily. Were they understandable and human? Yes."
Guess what, members of my family suffered in that war too. Several of them died.
My point has been and is in this discussion that I have a problem with those who ONLY decry the fire bombing of Dresden -- which was and is rather the original subject of this thread -- without putting it in greater context of the overall war and trying to understand the reasoning, flawed though it may have been, why the Allies chose to so bomb that city.
I haven't said that all things heinous and dreadful done during the war by the Allies were okay simply because they won. I said, in answer to the question why they were treated differently than the losing Axis, it was because they won. I didn't say it was okay.
But, if, as seems to be your argument, that everything dreadful the Allies committed during a dreadful war -- and war is by its very nature damned dreadful -- should be considered a war crime and everyone connected with those actions punished and that those who happen to argue an opposing opinion to yours are morally justifying all such actions, then you are sorely missing the point of opposing viewpoint.
But then, unlike some, I don't happen to think it a crime to defend oneself. I freely admit that not all actions taken in defense are morally correct. War has a nasty habit of being nasty with many innocents on both sides suffering as a result.
The civilians of Dresden suffered and died horribly. From Vonnegut's writings, it is equally apparent that he and his fellow Allied POWs were equally suffering and dying at the hands of the Germans.
As to the Soviets, the other Allies made a pact with the devil when they chose to ally with them in an effort to defeat Germany. Yes, the Soviets were every bit and more as reprehensible as the Axis powers. No question of that. The history of the Communist regime in the USSR is rampant with mass murder on a scale far beyond any other nation before, during and long after WWII. No argument there.
MRM
Ditto, malibuspamby!
"Anonymous" of 12 December 2009 speaks the truth.
The rich and powerful (and narcissistic, egotistical, and insecure) are the only ones who profit from war.
Please see the Wikipedia entry for "War is a Racket," by the late Major General Smedley Darlington Butler:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Is_a_Racket
The war in Afghanistan is not *against* "Terror". Like all wars before it, it's a calculated, for-profit undertaking. "What does Afghanistan have that America's rich and powerful can use?", you ask.
Opium.
I don't see the U.S. pulling out of Afghanistan by 2011.
Then why does the U.S. spend gazillions of big bucks trying to eradicate opium production?
Too many Anonymous posters. Get yerselves sorted out!
Excuse me MRM, but where in any of these posts, or in the original letter by Kurt Vonnegut, or in the original posting on this blog does it state ANYWHERE that Vonnegut, this blog owner, or anyone else who has posted here decries ONLY Dresden? Please show me where.
I think your first post was very emotional and not well thought out. Now that people have called you on the missing logic in your post, you constantly have to "clarify" your statements.
For myself, it's not political correctness run amok. Rather, it's me wanting America to be better than the rest of the world. Better technologically, militarily, and most of all, morally. The only way to do this is to criticize both our enemies and ourselves. I'm sorry if that rubs people like you the wrong way, but there is no need to be a constant defender of the "greatest generation". Americans nowdays, liberal and conservative alike both understand how important winning WW2 was for the Allies, and how different the modern world would be if the Axis powers had won.
I for one, am proud to be an American, and I honestly believe that as a country we do great things around the world. We have to hold ourselves to a higher standard in everything, including conduct during wartime. We have made great strides in both Afghanistan and Iraq with smart weapons, excellently trained ground troops, improved satellites and communications, all of which lower the collateral damage to non combatants. However, there is always room for improvement.
MRM: You have a point, you did not say that civilians deserved to die. Rather, you said that the killing of civilians was justified because these civilians supported the militarily aggressive regimes of Japan and Germany. So let me rephrase the end of my last post.
Saying the killing of civilians was justified in Hiroshima and Dresden makes you no better than the military commanders who ordered the rape of Nanking, the bombing of Coventry, the Bataan death march, and the Final Solution.
We didn't start it but dammit we sure as shite finished it. Almost nobody deserves to die, and nobody except the criminally insane would even think that, but then again, nobody sane invades their neighbor on a psychotic grab at territory and resources. Except for the native Americans. Oh well. Can't win 'em all. Nobody is perfect.
Oh well then, let the war crimes trials begin. Please, since you all think the U.S. should be held so utterly guilty for defending itself, let's put everyone on trial. I believe there are still some survivors of Pearl Harbor who did the dastardly deed of shooting back at the planes bombing them. Don't forget to try the dead also, after all, some 40,000+ Allied airmen died in the war and I'm sure some of them dropped bombs. Hell, why not hold their progeny and progeny's progeny guilty by association since you seem determined that the entire country should grovel and wear sack cloth in atonement for daring to wage war in return.
Perhaps you'd have preferred we apologized at the time to the enemies attacking us for making them unhappy and wanting to attack us. Then we could have sat back and waited to find out which enemy would overrun us first.
By your logic, we should apologize to Al Qaeda and put our entire country on trial for daring to make them pissed at the rich infidels.
Certainly, let us all offer to trade places, start chopping off hands and heads right and left and go back to the dark ages. Is that guilty enough for you?
*sarcasm most definitely intended*
Sorry to break up the circular debate but for anyone interested in the lives and stories of POW's like KV I highly recommend some not so well known accounts such as "No Time Off for Good Behaviour" by H.E. Wooley, "Bonds of Wire" by Kingsley Brown, "Wings Day" by Sydney Smith and a little more well known "The Wooden Horse" by Eric Williams.
These are all true accounts of what these guys went through, good and bad. It is astounding what humans can endure. These aren't horror stories or glorious war tales; they are down to earth regular people who faced the unknown with chins held high.
Each one of them proves the point that we learn from our mistakes, and hope they never happen again.
CCM
I am amazed that KV's letter home shows the same remarkable tone of his novels. Beautiful, with a low key, observant and mocking perspective that is very much like Mark Twain's. Thanks for publishing this - I'll be looking for "Armageddon in Retrospect." As for who he's blaming or not blaming, I don't think he was taking sides, just giving his opinion about the part of the war that he saw first hand. As for all the German and Japanese atrocities, does disapproving of them require approval of the bombing of Dresden? I wouldn't say that, and I also wouldn't say that he professed to have all the answers either - as if he's just providing another piece of the puzzle.
"So it goes" was stolen from the introduction of the novel Guignals Band by Ferdinand Celine. Vonnegut wrote the intro to Celines last novel Rigadoon. Go to the source...read Death on the Installment Plan and prepare to be changed.
Vonnegut did write that he's not surprized at the Holocost occuring, only that it hasn't occured more often.
What did make him cry in modern times was when he visited a famine in Africa (Niger maybe, Biafra?) Very touching works. Kurt was a very entertaining Liberal voice. Often I completely disagree wit him, but he frames his viewpoints so well that you can like him and learn from his views. That is a valuable trait that very few have.
Vonnegut was right. For decades historians have searched and never found a plausible military justification for the Dresden bombing. It's intended mission was the annihilation of civilians.
As for Japan, even Eisenhower and MacArthur expressed doubts about the morality dropping two atomic bombs.
While it may be possible to make a case for the "persuasive impact" of dropping the first atomic bomb, it's more difficult to argue with Telford Taylor, the U.S Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremburg war crime trials, who said, "The rights and wrongs of Hiroshima are debatable, but I've never heard a plausible justification of Nagasaki."
Nagasaki happened because Japan refused to surrender- even after seeing the supreme horrors of Hiroshima. I am of the belief that once viciously attacked like we were by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, we were justified in pursuing an end to the war with whatever means were decided by the US government.
Hit me and I will surely smack you back so hard that you- and other potential enemies- will never think about doing that again.
@ John Galt Jr.
The Japanese had surrendered after Hiroshima. The US Military had "not recieved" the communication.
Cliff
To follow-up my previous comment. I would like to say that when I was in college,in a History debate class, I had to argue for why the bombs were good... Of course I tried to use the Pearl Harbour reason (a known naval base), but it really can't stand up to attacking civilian territories. We keep saying an eye for an eye, but should hold ourselves up to higher standards, otherwise we are villains too.
I can't offer a direct quote, but one of the themes of another great 20th century writer (some would say the great 20th century writer) - Tolkien - was the need for the good guys to distinguish themselves from the bad. It is moral - obligatory - to defend yourself and your country and your children (and even other people's countries and other people's children) from evil. It's a question of how you do it. If you are fighting a war, people will die, and you will kill some of them. The question is how many. Some of that depends on how ruthless your enemy is - and some of it depends on how much you lose your sense of what makes you a better person than your enemy.
The decision of where to draw the line between necessary and excessive force is exceedingly difficult - something I'm not really sure any human being can be trusted with. What is the necessary force to teach a child not to run out into the street? Restraint? Spanking? Beating? How much is too much to be justified by the goal of teaching the child never to run out into the street again? And how much harder is it when the message is being delivered to someone whom you do not love, and who does not love you, but between whom there is mutual hatred? Did Pershing overdo it when he put down a Muslim rebellion in the Phillipines by coating bullets in lard?
It goes without saying that the Germans in Dresden did not individually deserve to die; make that argument and you can justify terrorism against any civilian population that supported something you think is evil - the PKK in Turkey, IRA in Ulster, or pretty much anywhere else.
How do you handle it? I served in easily the world's most maligned and vilified army, the Israel Defense Force. My basic training consisted of target practice, lots of running around mindlessly, standing in formation - and hours of classes on the targeted, limited use of force and open-fire regulations. Give the enemy every opportunity to surrender and fire as a last resort - and then first over their heads, at their feet, and only then shoot to kill.
Our army has sometimes sacrificed soldiers of our own in order to fight house to house in a town rather than bomb it. We are vilified for "starting" the Six Day War - for responding to Nasser's threat to drive us into the sea by pre-emptively destroying not a civilian target, but the entire Egyptian air force, still in it hangars. Israel has tried its own soldiers for use of excessive force in interrogations, defensive maneuvers, and the like, without the need for an international court (and, in fact, without anyone noticing). I am even aware of one case where soldiers who had caused damage to a home in Jenin during a search took up collection afterward and gave the homeowner $1500 out of their own pockets to repair the damage. And in Israel's war of independence, we learned the dangers of too little force: a 10 year old boy was released after questioning near Bet Lehem; he passed on the whereabouts of the soldiers who had questioned him and they were ambushed, with 35 soldiers killed. It is forbidden in the IDF to say "I was just following orders" when the orders are immoral.
Are we perfect? Not half. And when we are not, Israel's citizens are outraged as much as anyone. The point isn't to sing the praises of my own military. It's to say that self-defense is needed. Too little force is suicide - too much is murder. It's almost impossible to be right on target. The difference between good and evil is whether you care about being right. Germany in general did not - the more slaughter, the better. At least in principle the US did - and I think I can agree with the posters who suggested that Hiroshima was arguably right, but not NAgasaki. Real US policy would start from the morals and not from the economics. General Clark made that bold suggestion when he ran for President in 2004. Popular idea, morals.
the quote the person mention about $2 to #4 per person is in Kurts book, Palm Sunday.
I want to know if anyone can help me find a letter from a POW on the Bataan Death March to his family... if you know where one is, PLEASE post a comment on here about it. Thank you so much!
I don't think I would be wrong to state that (in my opinion) a good many people who have posted on this board have never been in combat. Again, this is just my opinion.
The very leaders that so many are condemning are the ones responsible for the very freedoms that those writers have to make such comments.
Take Curtis Lemay: Obviously, he would not be the guy you would want to invite to a fancy dinner party, or sit beside at that party. However, if your butt got into some serious trouble, he would be the one to call.
I know that the people in Leningrad who survived over 900 days of starvation wept when they heard about all the civilian casualties that the Germans suffered.
After all, just over one million civilians either were killed, or died of starvation in Leningrad.
Some people need to get a life. I have a life because when my father (who was on a ship bound for the invasion of Japan, scheduled for the Fall of 1945, I think) heard that the atomic bombs had been dropped on Japan, and the war was over, he wept (along with thousands of other troops on his ship), knowing that he would now live.
beautiful letter and also shows his budding skills in prose writing
(HACK) (HACK) im lactose intolerant!
where do u keep da CIGGARRETTS!!!
13 kids go in the water, 14 kids come out the water!........
soo0..ummM...who here watches Family Guy?..
0mg im g0ing tO read tHis bo0k fOr shure!!.....
Naww im juSt playiNg! i w0nt!!....s0unds goOd though!!....iwatch family guy!!..
I have taught SH5 to high school students about 50 times and I find something new every time. I laugh every time and I cry every time. The kids either totally love it or totally hate it--there is no in-between. But love it or hate it, it is a book they remember forever. In fact, one of my former students just facebooked me about this site! Next year, I will teach it again. Can't wait!
What an extraordinary letter. It shows his innate style and, though I haven't read Slaughterhouse Five, I don't see how it could better this description of his experiences ... in a letter to family.
This entire site is fascinating. Thank you for putting it together.
'Hilary'
pooteeweet!
Amazing! Such a slice of history.
My husband studied in Dresden - there are a few historical buildings left, but the rest of it is a sad-looking concrete desert.
I love how his penmanship is already there, budding. Especially in the repetition of "but not me." Beautiful!
Post a Comment
Should this post be older than 10 days, your comment will be moderated.
Thanks!