It is fairly important to understand the reasons as to why quotes from David Irving's 'Destruction of Dresden' appear in Vonnegut's book. It is quite difficult to understand why Vonnegut includes both of the quotes. The first quote, by Lieutenant-General Ira C. Eaker, is from the foreword and depicts a typical conservative, military view of the bombing campaigns in general. This is followed by the book's seemingly catchphrase "So it goes" which is usually within the book Vonnegut's of referring to the inevitability of life and how one cannot change what has happened.
The second quote, also from the foreword but by Air Marshal Saundby is much more significant due to the fact it is in tune with Vonnegut's own beliefs.Before I get into an analysis of the Saunby's quote I will attempt to answer the first sentence. As I mentioned yesterday Vonnegut's book was written a year after the Tet Offensive/Battle of Khe San. At this time the American Air Force was operating a bombing campaign against North Vietnamese cities, which could have parallels drawn between that and Dresden. Irving's book was also at this time quite widely accepted throughout the historical community as fact, the Irving vs Lipstadt lawsuit was still over half a decade away and Irving's investigatory skills as a writer (not historian) was not disputed at that point in time. So from this it can be concluded that Vonnegut, who had set out to write a book on Dresden, was possibly adding legitimacy to his viewpoint of the raids by quoting Irving's book which, given the context of the books publication above, seems a logically conclusion for their inclusion.
But on to Saundby's quote:
"That it (Dresden raids) was really a necessity few, after reading this book, will believe. It was one of those terrible things that sometimes happen in wartime, brought about by an unfortunate combination of circumstances. Those who approved it were neither wicked nor cruel, though it may well be that they were too remote from the harsh realities of war to understand fully the appalling destructive power of air bombardment in the spring of 1945."
This is a seriously profound statement being made by both the Air Marshal and Vonnegut. The first sentence does not suggest that the raids didn't happen rather that few people would be believe that the raids caused such devastation upon the city of Dresden. The last sentence of the quote talks of the men in charge of the air campaign, claiming that those who ordered the raid (Arthur Harris is probably being attacked here) did not consider the consequences of bombing a city to its ruins. It also suggests that Bomber Command lost sight of its moral high ground in the wanton attack on civilian centres.
"The advocates of nuclear disarmament seem to believe that, if they could achieve their aim, war would become tolerable and decent. They would do well to read this book and ponder the fate of Dresden, where 135,000 people died as a result of an air attack with conventional weapons."
What this quote is implying is simple that Dresden being bombed is worse than atomic weaponry. The figure of 135,000 is quite very wrong that can be seen now as highly inaccurate with the official figures of between 25,000 and 35,000 dead. This is stating that war was brutally horrible before nuclear weapons and so those calling for disarmament should question whether war would be civilised without the atom bomb, which what Saundby has said about Dresden seems to argue with that view considerable.
As I have already mentioned Vonnegut used these quotes to give legitimacy to his claims of Dresden as a travesty, often describing the war-torn city immediately after the city was destroyed by the RAF and USAAF. Having said this he most assuredly used this to promote his anti-war, hence anti-Vietnam, views and so that he could deal with the ordeal through writing, which he did with his other books when attempting to reconcile with tragic events in his life.
The problem with using Vonnegut's book in any historical investigation is difficult part from deciphering between the fact and the fiction. It is hard to tell if the events that befall the main protagonist of the book are true, especially when he does not state whether or not they were experienced by him. Slaughterhouse Five is not a historical volume of the Dresden raids, it is fiction and so must be treated that way. It is not a biography of his experiences of the raids, the recollection of it potentially diluted with narrative to further his anti-war opinions must be considered. Despite this it offers an alternate view of the bombings, potentially offering an insight that historians are unable to offer through research and the particulars.
No comments:
Post a Comment