My Reaction On Seeing Slaugterhouse Five - Slaughterhouse-Five (1972) Discussion

[–] MrPumpernickel 18 years ago

I don't think that he in any way tries to equate the bombing of Dresden to the holocaust. He does however show it as it was, the bombing (just like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) may very well had a purpose but it still meant the end of the life for tousands upon tousands of civilians.

A few Jews may directly have had their lives saved by the bombings, but does that in any way justify the killing of so many civilians? Especially when it comes to Dresden who was largely not a military target. It was a town with a fairly small military garrison, as well as small production for the whole war machinery. If you consider Jews alone then perhaps it was a success, but doesn't the German civilian population have just as much right to live?

On one side you blame Vonnegut for his German descent and on another you blame his retellings of his experiences in Dresden to be false. Did you somehow miss that he actually fought in Europe on the allies' side? Did you miss that while his parents (or further back, I don't know) may have come from Germany he was himself born and raised in the US of A? How can you accuse someone who actually fought against Hitler and the german army for skewing his experiences in favor of the Germans? It's borderline of an oxymoron.

I think what he does is to give a good view of war, there are no pretty pictures in war on either side. It doesn't matter that Hitler and his henchmen were horrible people, and the allies had the right idea, there are still casualties of war, often civilian casualties. Regardless of your beliefs war is never pretty, and no one is ever right in the end, regardless of the side you're on. It may sound like old, well chewed, rethoric, but if you count in human suffering no one really wins a war.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I dont think you clearly read what I said. Yes he did fight for the U.S.A. but
remember there was a draft and he had to. Anyhow, as shown by Billy Pilgrim, the people making him most miserable were his fellow G.I. 's. Vonnegut writes
elsewhere that he is very proud of his German ancestry and that it is a basic need to identify with his past.
Look at it this way. Suppose your father had been good to you but has been
convicted of a foul murder of which there is no question that he did it. Would
you not try and help your father by minimizing his crime and stressing that there were other criminals who have done as bad or worse crimes. Also you would
make as much effort that your father would be as comfortable as possible and have have a sentence has small as possible. So suppose a relative of the person killed would complain about your behavior. Well I am that relative and that is
why I have critized Vonnegut.

reply

[–] kingkongkitchie 18 years ago

"I dont think you clearly read what I said." - heich1
"I don't think you clearly read what Vonnegut said, but you don't see him complaining." - me

If we left art to be made soley by the victims or the victors there'd be little use for technicolor now would there?

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Suppose the person nearest and dearest has been kidnapped by a criminal who threatens to kill him/her. However the person is saved by the police who kill the kidnapper and his six year old son in the crossfire. Who is responsible for
the death of the child, you who complained to the police, the police, or the kidnapper? I would argue the kidnapper who put his child in this situation not
the police. This would even be so if the police where careless in the way they
were shooting.
The argument comparing this to the bombing of Dresden is that the Nazis and those Germans who supported them(who were most of the adult population) and not
the allied bombers. Vonnegut disagrees calling the bombing of Dresden a crime
and his identication with his german ancestry is the reason.
How have I not clearly read Vonnegut?

reply

[–] kingkongkitchie 18 years ago

This has nothing to do with what you said, and kind of everything to do with what you just said. It's a bob dylan song, and it's similar in content to how Vonnegut views the war within the book:

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not I," says the referee,
"Don't point your finger at me.
I could've stopped it in the eighth
An' maybe kept him from his fate,
But the crowd would've booed, I'm sure,
At not gettin' their money's worth.
It's too bad he had to go,
But there was a pressure on me too, you know.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not us," says the angry crowd,
Whose screams filled the arena loud.
"It's too bad he died that night
But we just like to see a fight.
We didn't mean for him t' meet his death,
We just meant to see some sweat,
There ain't nothing wrong in that.
It wasn't us that made him fall.
No, you can't blame us at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says his manager,
Puffing on a big cigar.
"It's hard to say, it's hard to tell,
I always thought that he was well.
It's too bad for his wife an' kids he's dead,
But if he was sick, he should've said.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says the gambling man,
With his ticket stub still in his hand.
"It wasn't me that knocked him down,
My hands never touched him none.
I didn't commit no ugly sin,
Anyway, I put money on him to win.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says the boxing writer,
Pounding print on his old typewriter,
Sayin', "Boxing ain't to blame,
There's just as much danger in a football game."
Sayin', "Fist fighting is here to stay,
It's just the old American way.
It wasn't me that made him fall.
No, you can't blame me at all."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

"Not me," says the man whose fists
Laid him low in a cloud of mist,
Who came here from Cuba's door
Where boxing ain't allowed no more.
"I hit him, yes, it's true,
But that's what I am paid to do.
Don't say 'murder,' don't say 'kill.'
It was destiny, it was God's will."

Who killed Davey Moore,
Why an' what's the reason for?

Now, you clearly don't think in that way, which is why you probably shouldn't go watching films or reading books by people who do.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I dont think this poem is relevant. This poem is obviously about boxing and Dylan's opposition to it. Obviously no one would be killed in boxing accidents if the sport was abolished and the number of people being killed would be reduced.
However if the Second World War were not fought and the Nazis took over England
I would probably have been killed. I was six years old at the end of the war but
that would have made no difference as I am Jewish and my parents fled Germany
because of the Nazis. I naturally appreciate those who risked or gave their lives and I cannot complain about who they killed even if some were more or less innocent.
In other words certain people because of their ancestry (not what they did or said) would have been killed even if all the nations of the world were pacifist and surrended to the Nazis.
Vonnegut would have been in somewhat different position. If he said the right
things to the Nazi dominators of the world he would have actually in a superior
position because of his German(Aryan) ancestry.
Dylan was opposed to the Vietnam War. Was he opposed to all wars?

reply

[–] kingkongkitchie 18 years ago

No, it's actually about BLAME. It's not really about boxing. Read it again. Read it slowly! I kind of got the feeling you wouldn't get it.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Read my last reply more carefully where I give reasons why the Nazis had to be
stopped by war. Therefore those who stopped them had less blame then the Nazis.
Surely you not saying that the actual and potential victims are to blame even
partially. I dont think you would say a murderer is not to blame because he had a miserable childhood.

reply

[–] Lord Quixote 18 years ago

Just have to point out that all Germans weren't Nazis. It's like bombing Dallas to get rid of the Ku Klux Klan. Not all Texans were part of the KKK (even though the KKK had a large influence in Texas at one point).

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Remember if a member of the KKK does a crime he is punished by the legal system. That this was not always true is a discrace to U.S.A. Here in Canada it is against the law to be a member of a hate group which the KKK is.
I am not saying that all Germans where sympathic to the Nazis just most were.
I just saw a movie called The Lives Of Others which showed how the Communists oppressed the East Germans. However in 1989 when the Russians said they would
not interfer the East Germans(including Dresden) overthrew their Communist leadership very easily with mass demonstrations. This did not happen against
the Nazis. You must admit the Germans were more sympathetic to the Nazis then
the East Germans to the Communists. The only way of getting rid of the Nazis was by war from the outside, i.e. the Second World War.
Remember also Texas with the rest of the Confederacy was reconquered during the U.S. civil war with all the evils that war brings.

reply

[–] Lord Quixote 18 years ago

The first KKK was formed *after* the civil war.

Anyways, on to the main point, it's easier to be more sympathetic to people who oppress a small minority (Nazis, KKK, people who hate Germans during WWII, etc.) vs. people who oppress everyone (Communist leadership). Besides, a large portion of America (apart from being racist against blacks) was also anti-Semitic as well--it's just that after seeing an *organized* system of racism in action it became unfashionable to be anti-Semitic.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

So you agree with me, perhaps in part. Yes it is true there was anti-semitism in
America but no American leader wanted to kill them all. In fact that is true about the KKK. They did not want the blacks to have the same rights as whites and where willing to kill some of them to intimidate the rest. A better comparison would be the way the Nazis treated the non jewish Poles, not how they
treated the Jews.

reply

[–] Lord Quixote 18 years ago

Er...you're missing the point. The point is that not all Germans were Nazis so you shouldn't hate all Germans to the point that you get angry at a movie that doesn't portray evil Germans. Not all Americans were anti-Semitic or part of the KKK, so, similarly, we shouldn't get angry at "It's a Wonderful Life" because it doesn't portray evil Americans. And so forth.

(Fixed typos.)

reply

[–] flavia18 18 years ago

No, not all Germans were Nazis.
But how many of them actually bothered to oppose what was going on?
At any rate, I am sick of hearing about Dresden when Germany did its
own civilian bombings, and in more than one city.

Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

At last somone who agrees with me.

reply

[–] hunninghake 18 years ago

Flavia, thank you for the ignorant bastardization of George Santayana's famous historical quote. I'm sure he would be MOST impressed! It has not been argued that Germany did not participated in it's share of civilian bombings...The Luftwaffe did their fair share of bombings throughout England. What was being argued was the militaristic appeal (or lack thereof) that Dresden possessed. Heichl had incorrectly argued it's appeal as a strong military target. It was not. That was one of MANY vacuous statements that seem to pour ad nauseum from this person's keyboard. I am glad to hear that you hold those who study history in such high regard. You seem quick to disregard those that feel history is one of the best tools we have to learn about the fallibility of humanity and that is provides us a way through the minefield of our future. To be honest with you, I find it rather insulting that you would go that direction when it is history we are discussing. Gerda once stated that "We can learn from history how past generations thought and acted, how they responded to the demands of their time and how they solved their problems. We can learn by analogy, not by example, for our circumstances will always be different than theirs were. The main thing history can teach us is that human actions have consequences and that certain choices, once made, cannot be undone. They foreclose the possibility of making other choices and thus they determine future events". You can chose to disregard the past, but, as is coyly alluded to in your quip, you'll be forced to repeat it

reply

[–] flavia18 18 years ago

Thanks for proving that you really couldn't refute what I said - you skirted the issues I raised and added a great deal of specious bluster to the discussion - and had to fall back on sneering at my sig.

Those who study history are doomed to watch others repeat it.

reply

[–] hunninghake 18 years ago

Flavia, please read some of the prior posts..This is a lengthy thread and your statements have been covered in depth in several prior threads. You'll see your points hashed and re-hashed..My reply was more directed at your final comment which I felt to be pointed and as an insult towards my chosen profession and life. The only issue you raised pertained to your purported lack of resistance from the German public. This has been tackled directly in no less than half-a-dozen threads. I did not skirt this topic as my primary focus was the pointed statement along with an agreement of Germany's involvement in bombings and an explanation of the (my) primary argument regarding the bombings. Please take note of the fact that Germany was under the control of a fascist dictatorship...Follow or be felled. How quick would you have been to protest knowing that you and ALL of your family would have been lined up and shot if you were to do so? There was an underlying current of fear throughout Germany (for the MANY that opposed the genocidal and racist acts) that was so thick you could cut it with a knife. Not to mention the presence of the strong Nationalists that would quickly report those who they saw as counterproductive to the movement. It was a chaotic and tumultuous environment...There are several great novels out there detailing these accounts from a very objective and personal stance...I'd recommend The Nazi Seizure of Power : the experience of a single German town (William Allen) as well as Inside Nazi Germany: Conformity, Opposition and Racism in Everyday Life (Detlev Peukert) which detail the impotence vast majorities of German citizens felt in opposing the war. You are correct in stating that not all Germans were Nazi's? I never stated that I was trying to refute that.If you read my statement closely you'll see that the bulk of my reply was regarding your statement which seemed to be directed at Historians. I take a great deal of pride in knowing the path's humanity has taken and the falls we have taken as a result. If that was not a pointed quip, than I apologize for my retort. I don't see any other passage in my reply that was in any way directed at refuting your statements. Aside from my defense of Historians, the rest concurred with you that Germany did involve itself in civilian bombings and then went on to explain the argument that many have had regarding Heichl's statement that Dresden was a tactical military target and fully justifiable as such...along with other peripheral issues...so, please review some of the prior posts and read up on why people weren't out protesting in the streets and why there was an air of impotence towards resistance. Can we please be done with this Flavia?! I have drenched myself in German WWII History and have been on this thread for far too long trying to correct and admonish several of Heichl's erroneous statements...Yes, it is tiresome and I do have other things I could be attending to. All that I have been trying to impart to Heichl, I'm all futility, is the vast majority of facts and perspectives he/she is ignoring. We can go back and forth on whether or not you felt that I was trying to refute your previous post, but I would prefer to get onto other things. I cannot be so hypocritical as to say that I haven't stoked the fire in some of my posts, but my reply to your previous statement was mostly directed at your closing statement. If it was not meant as a directed comment towards my profession that I do apologize for the "bluster". Still take what I stated into consideration and read up as it has been a topic broached before regarding internal resistance of the Nazi movement. Regards.

reply

[–] carthur27 16 years ago

Lord Quixote wrote, "even though the KKK had a large influence in Texas at one point."

Really, when was this? There wasn't any period after the 1920's when even 1% of Texas residents were members of the Ku Klux Klan. If you think less than 1% has a large influence, you must also believe the Libertarian party is really shaping America today.

reply

[–] ryander 18 years ago

heich1 - we all understand your point with 100% clarity, and it isn't surprising at all that you view Vonnegut's work in such a way - in fact, its your point of view that he's attacking, because its points of view that create conflicts. Its points of view that create conflict, because we make them a part of us, and when we feel that we are being attacked, whether directly or indirectly through sentiments, that we do the most awful things in this world. People will defend their lives, and exact revenge, and defend their ideologies with all the ferocity in the world. Its this reactionary thinking that causes most of the problems in life. But it's inevitable that we fall into this sort of thinking - most of us are stuck in it all the time. If we didn't have it we'd all waste away to nothing - accomplishing nothing, feeling nothing. Its why we have nazis and popes and rapists and prostitutes and lynch mobs and juries. It's all the same stuff - we just create the dividing lines inside our minds to rationalize our own points of view and to keep from going out of our minds like Billy Pilgrim.

Now, if you still don't know what i mean, go and meditate, or smoke some grass, and listen to that Dylan song. With any luck you'll begin to appreciate the world on a whole new level. I hope I could help some.

reply

[–] srennie 16 years ago

Had forgotten that brilliant poem - thanks for taking the time to reproduce it. As for the object of your lesson, let's just agree not to cast any more pearls before Heich 1. Perhaps an evening course at his local university in critical analysis would sharpen his scattershot perspective somewhat..... with all due respect to his opinions, of course.

reply

[–] justadog79 14 years ago

HEAR, HEAR! AMEN! HUZZAH! ...and I agree, good fellow.

~ The same thing we do every night, Pinky... ~

reply

[–] aristideau 15 years ago

Are you crazy?, of course the bombing of Dresden was a crime. A quick google will result in numerous arguments that it was actually a war crime.
What, are only Jews allowed to be victims? sheesh.

reply

[–] redskydown-1 17 years ago

If you go to www.wikipedia.org and bring up Dresden you can read all the
military considerations for the bombing. I'm nither pro or con on the
subject. But it had a lot to do with the rail system that the Germens used
tranporting troops from and to different fronts of battle. And one reason
given was more political. It was stated that the West wanted to give a
demonstratation of military power so the Russians wouldn't get any ideas
as so how far westward they could or couldn't go.

"Many troubled things have been in my life, a few actually happened."
---Mark Twain

reply

[–] secondeye 17 years ago

"A few Jews may directly have had their lives saved by the bombings, but does that in any way justify the killing of so many civilians? \"

Yes.

reply

[–] MrPumpernickel 17 years ago

You choose to answer that question but totally ignore the other one, I'll ask it again so you'll have a chance to answer:

"If you consider Jews alone then perhaps it was a success, but doesn't the German civilian population have just as much right to live?"

reply

[–] heich1 17 years ago

At last someone who agrees with me. At least 80% of the German civilans were pro-Nazi.

reply

[–] sunkissed141 18 years ago

jeez no he doesn't

every human being on earth needs to realize that everything in the entire world is not about them

Kurt Vonnegut wasn't auschwitz, he was a POW at Dresden. So it makes sense he would write a book about what he EXPERIENCED at Dresden, not about how terrible the Holocaust was. That's what happened. We wrote about what happened with HIM. It's not historical fiction, its a memory, jackass. It's not like he was going to try and "minimize the Nazi crimes" or anything like you said. He doesn't mention much about the Nazis because what he SAW and DID and WROTE ABOUT didn't involve the Nazis. Do you get it? Vonnegut, who is AMERICAN and in the AMERICAN ARMY was fighting for the AMERICANS and when he was a prisoner of war he saw a beautiful city that the AMERICANS bombed for no reason. Maybe if you had read the book you'd know this was something that he was actually there for. The book is not supposed to be all about history and WWII as a whole. Kurt Vonnegut is portaying, in that comical, sad but satire way he does what HE experiened at Dresden. Goddamn.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

First any book that deals with the bombing of Dresden is either pure history(which this is not) or historical fiction. Your statement that the Americans
bombed the city for no reason is a matter of opinion. First it was a railway
junction so its bombing would weaken the German army.
More important the bombing of Dresden and other German cities showed the German people that they were really beaten and not betrayed by traitors(e.g. Jews) like they did after the First World War. It is no accident that the Germans became a model state after the Second World War. There was no insurgency when the war was over.
Yes I have read the book and some of other Vonnegut books and they did not change my mind, rather confirmed it. Also look at some of my other posts.

reply

[–] themovieking245 18 years ago

I can't believe how ignorant you are. Justifying the dresden bombing. Of course you were not there like Kurt was, so you believe what you are told through textbooks and "credible" sources. You really need to go through and read what you say becasue you sound like a complete dumbass. You sound like a man that takes liquid ignorance and ejects it into his brain. Kurt making the germans crimes minimal, give me a break. You just don't want to believe that America can screw up. Obviously Germany did, so why can't the all powerfull United States. Anyway, for you MR. heich1 i suggest watching alot of foreign films, and maybe listing to somebody but Rush Limbaugh or watching the O'Riley
factor. SAVE THE WHALES.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Read what I have said in my posts. Germany at the time was ruled by a group of
people who were who declared my family and me not fit to live because of my alleged race and killed my grandmother and would have killed me if they had a chance. I have mentioned a second witness Victor Klemperer who was there who had an opposite opinion. I dont know what Limbaugh or O'Reilly's opinions are on the bombing of Dresden and I disagree with them on many matters. If someone
killed one of your relatives you would not care what the police did to them would you. Answer me this.

reply

[–] craig_c_clarke 18 years ago

" If someone killed one of your relatives you would not care what the police did to them would you. Answer me this."

Yes, I would. If someone killed my family I would want them arrested and want them to get a fair trial. If the police tortured them, I would be upset. If the police abused his rights, I would be upset.
Because when the authorities abuse one person's rights, they abuse ALL of our rights.

But on a more personal level, I would not like it because I am a moral person. Killing is immoral. Torturing people is immoral. Violating people's rights is immoral. I would care what police did to the killer of my family, I would want him treated morally under the letter of the law, because if not I lose my morality and become no different than the killer.

Take that away, and all you have is animals tearing each other apart - immoral, amoral animals whose only restraint from doing wrong is the fear of retribution. The only defense from the snarling dogs then is in being a bigger snarling dog.

There will always be some people who are sociopaths. They are a problem to be managed, and this needs to be done by moral people - not by responding with sociopathy.

reply

[–] themovieking245 18 years ago

OK first things first. I'am sorry about your family. I dont know why you put that in your response to my reply. If you read it closely you will find that i was talking about how you believe that Kurt was minamalizing the Nazi's crimes and how you justified the Dresden bombings. Now if you please respond to what i siad instead of saying trying to make me feel bad for your family. And to answer your question. If a man muredered a elative of mine, i of course would be upset. I would want justice. Now if that justice involved the murder of hundreds of thousands of INNOCENT people, then i would not want him to be killed. Do you understand that 90 percent of the victims of the Dresden bombing were civilians. So let me ask you. Would it be ok if New York City was taken over by some radical terroists, to bomb the hell out of the city and kill a hell of alot more innocent people than terroists? To me that sounds a little crazy. Please answer my post.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

First what Vonnegut is trying to do is not minimizing the crimes by the Nazis, but trying to distinguish the German people of that time from the Nazis. The problem is not that Hitler had crazy ideas but he managed to get enough support
from the German people to implicate them. In this Dresden was no different from
the rest of Germany. In his description of Germans in his movie he clearly shows
the chief of his prisoner of war camp as being rather neutral to the Nazis. The
only enthusiatic Nazi was an American, again distinguishing the Germans from the Nazis.
Dershowitz in one of his books describes the public rape of a woman in the Accused which is based on a real case. He mentions the rapists, those who cheered on the rapists, and finally those who were quiet but did nothing to help to rape victim. He says that all were guilty in some way although not necessarily legally. So the civilians of Dresden where mostly not completely innocent although the children were. Somehow you not know what war is like. When
I was in Amsterdam some time ago, which of course was occupied during the Second World War, the person giving the tour said that a school had been bombed by the Allied bombers because the Allies where trying to bomb the S.S. barracks next door. Still the Dutch were glad to be liberated.
Your example of terrorists taking over New York and killing last number of innocent New Yorkers is different because they would be hostages, not supporters
of the terrorists in any way. Dont think what you suggested has not been done.
In Moscow when Chenchen terrorists took over several hundred hostages not only did the Russians kill the terrorists but a large number of hostages as well. But this has been critisized.
I think the example of Dresden is used not merely because of the people killed. After all many German cities where bombed as badly. It is because the city was designed in a artistic way and there has been concern that art rather then people were destroyed.

reply

[–] themovieking245 18 years ago

First of all heich, not all germans were supporters. If you were in a country over run by a manical government would you sacrifice your life and the lifes of your children to appeal it? You are saying that all Germans are supporters, and that is not true. Your last comment is absurd, yes it was an artistci city and yes that upsets people, but what was the real concern was the houndreds of thousands CIVILIANS killed in a bombing that did not need to take place. As well as the US Government doing whatever it can to make the bombing seem absolete. Once again Vonneguts goal for the book was to expose the bombing not distinguishing the german people from nazis, though he does do that it is not the central message of the book. Once again heich you were not there during the War Vonnegut WAS. It is my opinion that you have a strong prejudice against germans. Now if your jewsih i can completly understand your views towards Nazis i have the same. You need to realize that all Germans were not Nazis at the time. You also need to re-read the book. You have completely missed the point of the book. You have missed it horribly.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

First I never said that all Germans were supporters just most. The few, very few
who resisted we respect very much like The White Rose group. If the majority of Germans were really opposed to the Nazis where did the Wehrmacht come from which
fought the allies vigoursly. Your comments that hundreds of thousands civilians
were killed is not believed by reputable historians. According to Wikipedia the
death rate was about 25,000-30,000 out of a population of 850,000, i.e under 5%.
Higher figures are given by David Irvin, the holocaust denier and other neo-nazis. You seem to get your hundreds of thousands from people like them. In comparison of the 9 million Jews under Hitler's control 6 million were killed.
After the war few Germans admitted to being Nazi supporters. Klemperer, who I
mentioned before, mentions seeing bonfires by Germans burning Nazi Propagana
as the allies approached.

reply

[–] themovieking245 18 years ago

Ok, first let me explain to you something, from the begining my post was about how badly you missed the message of the BOOK. Now i dont know if you are right about the actual death toll. You may be, if you are more power to you. Still thirty thousand people died FOR NO REASON. Do you understand. In your last post you talked about how it was the Nazis fault for the bombing, and than about how the civivlians didn't have to go along with the nazis. YOU STIL HAVE NOT JUSTIFIED WHY AMERICA BOMBED A INNOCENT CITY. NOR HAVE YOU COMMENTED ON HOW I SAID THAT YOU MISINTERPUTED THE NOVEL. WHICH YOU DID IF YOU HADN'T THAN YOU WOULD SEE THAT VONNEGUT WAS TRYING TO EXPOSE THE BOMBING, BECAUSE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAD NO IDEA WHAT HAPPENED. NOW IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE OUR LITTLE CHAT PLEASE ANSWER THESE THINGS PLEASE. THANK YOU.

ps. You missed the point of the book and you missed it horribly.

p.s.s If you can't answer these things then i will not post here because it is no use and a waste of my time.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Before I go on I would like you to answer two questions.

1) Was the American entry into World War II justified?

2) Was bombing any German cities justified? If you say yes how would you decide
which was justified or not.

3) How would Vonnegut answer these questions.

By the way I realized before I saw the movie how badly Germany had been bombed. In fact I saw some of the damage myself when I was in Germany in 1953 with my
parents.

I will answer what I meant that the Nazis where responsible for the Dresden bombings. In a holocaust movie called Fateless the main character after having
survived numerous Comcentration Camps on his way home he goes by the ruins of Dresden and says this is what the Nazis have lead to. What he meant was to get
rid of the Nazis the bombing of German cities including Dresden was necessary.
Same idea as curing cancer can be disagreable for the patient.

reply

[–] Krustallos 18 years ago

Before I go on I would like you to answer two questions.

1) Was the American entry into World War II justified?

2) Was bombing any German cities justified? If you say yes how would you decide
which was justified or not.

3) How would Vonnegut answer these questions.

Ahem. That's three questions. Vonnegut would, indeed has, answered the first two questions affirmatively. In fact he said that possibly Hitler's worst crime was that he made war respectable again, by being so bad that he justified the war against him. Regarding justification, he points out that Dresden had no military significance and that the major military presence in the city was the concentration of US POW's including himself.

He also mentions the Holocaust in the book, (or perhaps in another book) where he recounts a conversation at a party with someone taking broadly the same line as you. I think the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" is a key one here.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I want to make a few comments on what you said. Actually Dresden was not the German city where the most loss of life took place because of the bombing. Rather it was Hamburg where about 45,000 were killed in comparison to 35,000 in Dresden. Also according to Wikipedia there was industry helpful to the German war effort. These include the Zeiss_Ikon optical factory, the Siemens glass factory which made military gun sights, radar and electronic components, fuses for antiaircraft shells, gas masks, Junker aircraft engines, and cockpit parts
for Messerschnitt fights. Also it was a junction for German troops going to the
East. The allies wanted to end the war as quickly as possible to minimize the loss of life to its troops. In addition the end of the war would reduce the number of Jews being killed. As I have mentioned before the chaos from the bombing meant that a few Jews survived who otherwise would not. The reason for the concern about Dresden over other German cities is its artistic value. Therefore I am not sure that the bombing of Dresden was a wrong, definately not on the scale the Nazis did and to say it was will make the Germans less guilty
about what they did when the Nazis were in power.

reply

[–] rosckoe 18 years ago

More on historical inaccuracies.
Throught this thread of discusion the contributors have repeatedly alluded to the U.S/America bombing Dresden,when in fact the R.A.F led the raid with some support from the U.S.A.A.F(United states army air force).

reply

[–] neonsmog 18 years ago

Was the science fiction and sex pretty cool though?

reply

[–] ltux-1 18 years ago

Thank you, Neonsmog!

reply

[–] broncobra 18 years ago

wow, this whole thread made me think of the old saying, whats the difference between genius and stupidity? genius has it's limits!only a certian portion of the thread is afflicted with the stupidity, but i am reasonably assured that they won't recognize themselves. Kurt V. has a compelling, different and extremley interesting way of telling a story. i would like to see this movie, especially after seeing Catch 22. i don't know if they are in the same absurd vien or not. i have read Kurt V's. Breakfast of Champions, and see that it is a movie starring Bruce Willis. the book was very disturbing and warped at first, but by the middle it started to gel and in the end the message came thru loud and clear and it all crystalized.

reply

[–] clenchedbrain 18 years ago

Good grief. If you want a meditation on the bombing of Dresden, this film will not give you it. The bombing of Dresden is an important part of this film/book, but neither Vonnegut, nor the film-makers are attempting to provide a resounding moral judgement upon the act of bombing itself - it is merely a part of the narrative.
If you wish to know more about the bombing, read 'On The Natural History Of Destruction' by WG Sebald. A profound, brilliant, and affecting book.

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 18 years ago

Certain people have this need to see history like a B-cowboy movie with "good guys" and "bad guys," so that the US and its allies wear the white and everybody else wears the black.

The point is, the Nazis and Japanese were not the only ones to commit atrocities during WWII. The crimes of the Soviets were of course well documented and openly talked about, but the hypocrisy of nations that turn hundreds of thousands of Japanese and German civilians into human torches and then whine about "human rights violations" should be pointed out and documented.

Kudos to Vonnegut for writing this! (who, incidentally, is a true humanitarian who has absolutely no sympathy or use for Nazis or for German nationalism)

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

This might be one of the most obtuse things I've ever read.

Apparently, Kurt Vonnegut is a Nazi sympathizer who wrote Slaughterhouse-Five to justify the Holocaust, minimize Nazi crimes, and make Americans look like the bad guys in World War II. He only "claims" to be a witness to the Dresden bombing, but that's spurious. Oh, and 100 people who might have died otherwise (they would have had roughly 1-2 months to make it depending on where they were sent) escaping justifies the bombing of Dresden.

You're joking, right?

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Read what I read elsewhere. I never said Vonnegut was a Nazi sympathizer rather a pacifist who was a German nationist. Hence he minimizes the support the German people had for the Nazis. I have just seen a movie, which has won the Academy award for the best Foreign Film. It shows the miserable time that the East Germans(including Dresden) had under the communists. However in 1989 when they realized that Russia would not interfere with massive demonstrations they got rid of the Communists. They never did this against the Nazis so Nazism must
have been more popular with the Germans at that time.
I never said Vonnegut was not a witness to the Dresden bombings rather I mentioned a second witness, who believed probably correctly, that his life was saved. 1-2 months was enough time for the 100 people to be killed. If you were about to be killed on the sole reason you were born to a certain group would you object if others were killed who were going to kill you or standing by permitting you to be killed?

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

Read what I read elsewhere.

No thanks.

I never said Vonnegut was a Nazi sympathizer rather a pacifist who was a German nationist.

Vonnegut is as American as they come, straight from Indiana, fourth-generation. I doubt Vonnegut gives a rat's behind about being German.

Hence he minimizes the support the German people had for the Nazis.

Where the hell are you getting this stuff from? The German people barely factor in either the book or the movie, there's no real gauge for how much they supported the Nazis (which, incidentally, wasn't very much).

However in 1989 when they realized that Russia would not interfere with massive demonstrations they got rid of the Communists. They never did this against the Nazis so Nazism must have been more popular with the Germans at that time.

Historical ignorance and a lack of logic must lead to a blissful existence. In truth, Communism only affected a third of the country, and now in that third they have a word called "Ostology" for East German nostalgia, i.e., there are a lot of East Germans who secretly think life was better with communism around (long story...). No one, and I repeat, no one had any nostalgia for the Nazi party. Yet you think they loved the Nazis more. Okay, Dr., okay.

1-2 months was enough time for the 100 people to be killed.

Considering that at the end of the war the focus was on work camps, and that the Russians were coming in and liberating many of them at the end of the war, let's say hypothetically that 60 of those people wound up dead. You're wanting to kill an entire city to save 60 people because said city happens to have a select group of 100 or so who were going to deport the 60.

You're insane.

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Vonnegut is descended from a group of Pacifists from Germany who could not tolerate the regime at that time, hence they came to America. However they continued to teach their children and grandchildren the German language and Vonnegut regrets that the following generation is losing their knowledge of the
German language. Therefore he considered himself a German American unlike what you said about not caring for his German ancestry.
The most obnoxious character in the movie was Lazio, a fellow American soldier and then prisoner of war. Also there is another American who speaks to the POW's
in Nazi and antisemitic terms. However the German head of the POW's is shown as a decent fellow and no Germans are shown as Nazi. Vonnegut has written another book where the main character is a Nazi war criminal being tried in Israel. This
war criminal is, you guessed it, an American who went over to the Nazis. Therefore if you just have seen the movie and read his books you would think Americans were more Nazi than the Germans.
You say that some East Germans are secretly nostalgic for communism but none
for Nazism. If it secret how do you know? The fact is that it is a crime today
in Germany to be a Nazi but not to be a Communist. Actually there is a party in
Germany called the National Democratic Party which is as pro-Nazi as the law allows. This party is particularly strong in Dresden. Anyhow what I said was that Nazism was more popular in Germany in 1945 than Communism in 1989. I was not talking about today.
Your final comments are true. Have you heard about the death marchs of Jews
when some concentration camps were liberated. You say I am insane to care more
about the 100 Jews who were saved than those killed in the bombing of Dresden.
What about the under 3000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks in comparison to the 3,000,000 killed in the Congo. I am sure you care about the first group much more, as they are your people. How many people have the Americans killed
because of them? So I am not so insane after all.

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

Therefore he considered himself a German American unlike what you said about not caring for his German ancestry.

There's a HUGE difference between celebrating being German-American (which is what Vonnegut's family did) and being a German nationalist.

The most obnoxious character in the movie was Lazio, a fellow American soldier and then prisoner of war.

So?

However the German head of the POW's is shown as a decent fellow and no Germans are shown as Nazi.

Oh, dear God. On what planet are German soldiers in World War 2 not Nazis? Tralfamador?

Therefore if you just have seen the movie and read his books you would think Americans were more Nazi than the Germans.

Uh...no.

You say I am insane to care more
about the 100 Jews who were saved than those killed in the bombing of Dresden.
What about the under 3000 people killed in the 9/11 attacks in comparison to the 3,000,000 killed in the Congo. I am sure you care about the first group much more, as they are your people. How many people have the Americans killed
because of them?

You're misusing the word "care" in order to make a bad argument. In this thread, we're talking about the Allied choice to bomb Dresden, not if we care more about Dresden or, say, Nagasaki. In answer to your question, my army has killed far too many people for the 3,000. I'm not going to go into my personal feelings on 9/11, but I condemn the murder of countless innocent people in Iraq the same way I condemn the allies bombing Dresden, Nagasaki, etc.

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Suppose your brother was a murderer. You would still be supportive of him. You would try to stress his good points, get him a good lawyer, mention all the problems he had which made him commit his murder, try to get him a minimum sentence. You would argue against his execution. After all he is your brother. In the same way, Vonnegut writes about the German people. That is what I mean that Vonnegut is a German Nationist. He realizes that Nazism was evil but he is
defending the German people and minimizing their involvment with Nazism because of his identification with the Germans.

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

Have you ever read the book or are you just going by the film?

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 18 years ago

Is it your position that the lives of 100 Jewish civilians are worth more than the lives of tens of thousands of German civilians? If you truly believe this, than you are every bit as bigoted and chauvinist as the Nazis you condemn (and far more chauvinist than Mr. Vonnegut, who goes out of his way to attack every form of inhumanity and injustice through his writings).

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Most of the Jews in Germany wanted nothing more than to be good German citizens
of the Jewish faith. My grandfather fought for the Germans in the First World War. Some Jews, like Klemperer, actually changed their faith but still this did not help except it extended his life to the point it could be saved by the bombing of Dresden. After the war was over I would be against the killing innocent or fairly innocent Germans like what happened in Eastern Europe in revenge by the inhabitants there, mostly non-Jewish. But when the bombing of Dresden occurred the war was not yet over, the Germans in Dresden were doing nothing to save the Jews there and were mostly actively or passively supporting the Nazis. The 100 Jewish civilians were completely innocent. The German civilians varied from the very guilty to innocent children. Also there were other reasons to bomb Dresden; there was some military value in doing so because
it had some industry. If not bombing Dresden would have delayed the end of the War even by a few days more people would have been killed.
By the way if you had asked the same question to the Dresden German civilians
of that time if their lives were worth more than Jewish lives they would have answered, of course, they were of a vastly superior race than the Jews and because of this there is a temptation after all that had hapenned to the Jews to reverse this.
If you had asked me if there was a fire in a building where Jews and non-Jews
where in and I answered that the firemen should rescue the Jews first I would be
as chauvinist as you said. However if an earthquake or a war occurs anywhere in the world the Americans would concentrate on helping their own citizens, who happenned to be in that country, first and the local inhabitants afterwards.
Of course every sane person would want permanent peace but the
world is not like this, especially when the bombing of Dresden occurred.

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

You're whole problem is that you view Jewish Germans in a completely different stratum than non-Jewish Germans. Regardless of which side you find superior, that's bad. Congratulations on buying into Nazi rhetoric hook line and sinker.

Here is an example:

The 100 Jewish civilians were completely innocent. The German civilians varied from the very guilty to innocent children.

I find this logic ridiculous considering not only because there were at least 100 "innocent" children murdered, but also because the Jewish Germans are just as much a part of German history as German citizens. Were they victims in WWII? Absolutely. But the Jewish Germans aren't completely innocent in the rise of the Nazis. You mention that your Grandfather fought in WWI for the Germans. Well, guess what? Since WWI is a direct cause of WWII, that relieves him of any innocence in the Nazi's rise.

It's that kind of utterly logic-impaired hypocrisy that has so many who post here laughing at you.

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Generally one considers victims superior to those that have made them into victims. What is so radical in that? I know that a few Germans were anti-Nazi. As far as Jewish Germans being a part of German history, of course that is true. It was the Nazis that said they were different so they are responsible for the break. My grandfather, particularly because he was born in Strassburg was quite a German national. He didn't want to leave and said to my parents, who encouraged my maternal grandparents to leave that basically the Germans where good people and the worst would not happen. He changed his mind after CrystalNacht. The only reason he was not forced into a Concentration Camp at that time was he because his ancestors had lived in Switzerland. My grandparents went then to Switzerland and eventually to a community in central Manhatten which was mostly German Jewish. They even had their own newspaper called the Aufbau. My grandparents continued to be interested in non-Nazi German culture like Geothe and Thomas Mann(who while not being Jewish fled the Nazis). My paternal grandmother stayed in Germany and was murdered there. Very few Jews went back to Germany after the war to live because what the Nazis did was unbearable. This included all members of my family.
My grandfather fought for the Germans to win World War I. So by your convoluted logic if they had won which they would have if the Americans had been as pacifist as you would have wanted. In that case there would have been no holocaust. So under your argument Wilson was to blame for leading the Americans into WWI.

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

Generally one considers victims superior to those that have made them into victims.

So you're one of the people who wants to hold all German citizens, even the infant children, responsible for the crimes of the Reich? Jewish life was not superior nor inferior to German average citizen life. If you believe there's a disparity, you're buying into Nazi logic. That's radical, no?

My grandfather fought for the Germans to win World War I. So by your convoluted logic if they had won which they would have if the Americans had been as pacifist as you would have wanted. In that case there would have been no holocaust. So under your argument Wilson was to blame for leading the Americans into WWI.

It's not my convoluted logic, it's your racist understanding of the world and my attempt to show you how ridiculous it is.

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

There is a man, Clifford Olson here in Canada who was convicted of first degree
murder and will spend the rest of his life in jail for picking up teenage girls
raping and murdering them. There was a controversity that for telling the police where he had buried the bodies, so the families of the victims could get closure and it was certain he would convicted, he demanded and got $100,000. He being in jail would not benefit from this money but his common-law wife and then infant son would. So he was a good family man and a pathopathic killer at the same time. So the fact that Nazis could be as good family men as Jews is probable. I have already stated and shown and one of the other posters has quoted that most(not all) Germans during the period of the Third Reich were sympathic to the Nazis. The difference is that they could behave decently to those who they considered part of their superior race but behave badly or even kill those who are not.
Anyhow the decision to bomb Dresden was not made by people who were Jewish and the possibility a few Jews might be saved by the bombing did not enter their calculation.
My grandfather fought in WWI because most male Germans of his time did so. So he was no more or less guilty than non-Jewish Germans. The Nazis accused the Jews betraying them so that is why they lost WWI. You accuss my grandfather and other Jews who fought in WWI of helping the Germans then of trying to win WWI. This type of controdiction is what marks anti-semitism, the fact the Jews can do nothing right. And you accuss me of racism. Look at yourself.
Anyhow the famous German Jewish mathematican Albert Einstein was against WWI but in favour of the allied
side in WWII, so much so that he encouraged Roosevelt to get the Americans to develop the atomic bomb. He felt guilty later because he realized it was used on Japan and possibly against other countries and the world might be destroyed.
You dont understand the feelings that Jews have by how they were treated by the
Nazis, even a pacifist like Einstein was.

reply

[–] Krustallos 18 years ago

The German people barely factor in either the book or the movie, there's no real gauge for how much they supported the Nazis (which, incidentally, wasn't very much).

Point 1 correct, point 2 not. In fact the Germans were pretty enthusiastic Nazi supporters. Of course there were no elections after the 1933 one where the Nazis were the largest single party but not the majority, but most historians agree that if there had been, the Nazis would have won handsomely. I have seen estimates by people like Alan Bullock, who know whereof they speak, that Hitler had around 90% support in Germany in the mid 30's.

Basically, the Nazis were able to peddle a national myth that made the Germans feel good about themselves as a people after the disasters of WW1 and the hyperinflation. A phenomenon which has been seen elsewhere in less malignant form - for example Reagan's 'comforting' presence after the trauma of Watergate.

Stalinism in East Germany was essentially imposed from outside which is why it collapsed so easily (apart from its internal contradictions as a system of government). Nazism might have been overthrown from within eventually, but Mussolini lasted for over 20 years, and Pinochet 17, so I wouldn't bet on it.

None of this has anything to do with Vonnegut or the book, of course, and the OP is still a dope, but on this one point he is correct.

I used to want to change the world. Now I just want to leave the room with a little dignity.

reply

[–] sonofabird 18 years ago

Of course there were no elections after the 1933 one where the Nazis were the larges single party but not the majority, but most historians agree that if there had been, the Nazis would have won handsomely. I have seen estimates by people like Alan Bullock, who know whereof they speak, that Hitler had around 90% support in Germany in the mid 30's.

Key phrase = "in the mid-30s."

Keep in mind the OP was using the argument that "the Germans didn't overthrow the Nazis, but they overthrew the commies, therefore they supported the Nazis more."

But in actuality, they didn't overthrow the communists until 40 years had passed.

You're right about the Nazis and Communists came to power (one being bought by myth, the other imposed); I was merely saying that 40 years after inception, more people would have chosen communism over nazism any day of the week.

"Always look on the bright side of life. Do do. Do do do do do do."

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

The reason the East Germans waited 40 years to overthrough the Communists was that the Russians would have stopped them. In the same year following Stalin's
death, anti-communist demonstrations were suppressed by the Russians. Also they
saw how Hungary and Czechoslovakia were treated when they tried to revolt. In 1989 they saw that Poland got away with breaking with the Communists so they felt they could.

reply

[–] cantabile87 18 years ago

"First I never said that all Germans were supporters just most. The few, very few who resisted we respect very much like The White Rose group. If the majority of Germans were really opposed to the Nazis where did the Wehrmacht come from which fought the allies vigoursly."

wow i can't believe how ignorant you are! i dont think you have the right to say anything about this since you dont know what it was like for the germans! i was born in germany, so my whole family is german and many of my relatives were in the war. do you realise that if the germans refused the nazi ideal they would be sent of to the concentration camps with the jews??? there was no way anyone could disagree or speak up because they would be killed off! my great grandfather was in the army and a POW in russia, my grandfather was in the hitler youth... and they didnt choose to be involved in these organizations they were FORCED TO! it doesnt mean that they were nazis or believed what hitler was doing was right or hated the allies or anything! you say there were very few who resisted... BECAUSE THEY HAD NO CHOICE!!! you have no idea how much my family and so many other germans suffered during the nazi regime, and for you to say that "most" of them supported the war is just rediculous.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

You may have been born in Germany but you were born in Postwar Germany so you were getting your information from relatives just like me. My father, who was Jewish, and lived in Nazi Germany until he fled, was of the opinion that 80 percent of the Germans supported the Nazis. This is supported by most experts
including one of the previous posters. Well if enough of the people in the Wehrmarcht were really against the Nazis they could have revolted successfully
or at least used passive resistance. An example of the latter was Schindler. Well there was a limit to the number of Germans the Nazis could put in a concentration camp. They could not put most of them away. I have already given the example of East Germany when the Russians refused to help the Communist leaders in 1989 the regime fell like a house of cards although previously they
had treated opponents like the Nazis did. There was an East German army but it didn't try to save the East German regime. Another example of an army that didn't fight vigorously was the South Vietnamese army in 1975. The Wehrmarcht did not behave in this way but rather was defeated by overwhelming force by countries that outnumbered them by at least six to one.

reply

[–] chech_dog 18 years ago

everyone is goign in circles!

heich you have made no point and you are hard to understand, type better.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

The people who disagree with me come up with the same points so I have had to repeat myself.

The reasons I give for the bombing of Dresden by the allies are the following:

1) The Nazis were so obnoxious that they had to be stopped by war. Their worst
feature was that they declared certain people, including the Jews, not fit to live merely because of their ancestry.

2) Most of the Germans during the war supported the Nazis.

3) When Dresden was bombed the war was not over and anything that would shorten the war would save lives. In addition about 100 Jews in Dresden who would have been killed had their lives saved because of the chaos resulting.

4) The concern about the bombing of Dresden is that it was a city with artistic
merit. It is not true there was no industry there to help the Nazi war effort.
Other cities in Germany were bombed as severely like Hamburg. Also English cities were severely bombed or hit by the V1s and V2s. Not the same concern is expressed about them.

5) My objections to Vonnegut is that he is because of his German ancestry has special concern what happenned to the Germans. He is a pacifist and the Nazis(including most Germans of the time) were the complete opposite to his pacifism.
He is not able to resolve this in his mind. Hence he wants to show the Americans
are as bad (or worse) then the Nazis.

I hope this clears up what I think. It seems that the other posters in this group were influenced by this movie. Those who object to the point made about
Dresden are not posting in this section. In addition the other posters have been influenced more recent more debateably wars that the Americans have not into. Vonnegut does this himself by connecting WW2 with Vietnam.

6) I found this movie completely insulting to what my people, the Jews, including my own family, had to go through.

I elaborate more on the points made in some of my other posts.

reply

[–] underdose_666 16 years ago

1. Agreed
2. False - the numbers of card carrying germans was very few, the way naziism thrived wasnt because of support but through fear. There have been any number of films and books portraying it as the opposite of what you claim.
3. The war wasn't shortened - the bombing was carried out to demoralise the civilian population but seeing as they weren't in control this had no effect. Plus the city had little worth as a military target and using incendiaries isn't the best way to destroy a train track.
4. True the nazis bombed cities but again your confusing nazis with ordinary germans.
5. Vonnegut didn't want to say anyone was as bad as the Nazis but civlians were civilians whatever side of the atlantic they came from. Vonnegut after the bombing was forced to dig out corpses from the rubble of children, their parents and their grandparents - he isn't a nationalist or patriotic for any country, he is a humanist - he beleives in the humanity of the evryday man.

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] carthur27 16 years ago

Krustallos wrote, "A phenomenon which has been seen elsewhere in less malignant form - for example Reagan's 'comforting' presence after the trauma of Watergate."

The trauma was the loss of the Vietnam War and the inflationary American economy with its companies that were perceived as consistently losing in the '70's to Japan and West Germany.

reply

[–] snoorton 18 years ago

well, heich, I dont give a damm what your opinion is
about anything.
I like the film, and I kinda like germans too,.hahahaha
Michael

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

Well you are not Jewish and didn't have had to go through what they had to go through.

reply

[–] snoorton 18 years ago

Im sorry , but, I can not see anything in this film, other than the story of a P O W in world war 2... in dresden. it is a film, and I should be allowed to watch it...
Michael

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I would be against censoring this film but I have the right to critisize it. Most POW's are not as friendly to their capturers as Vonnegut is.

reply

[–] hunninghake 18 years ago

You are just a posting troll...Too focused on any relation to the loss of Jewish life that you are missing the point of the book (which you have clearly not read), it's themes, and the tragedy that this event is WIDELY recognized to have been. It is a great novel on the human condition and is considered one of the greatest literary works of the twentieth century. First we need to address the death toll..This fluctuates between 35K to 100K with NO conclusive evidence to prove either. What is proven is that this was not a major military outpost or area of production...You do reference railroad locales, but please look into railway organization for Germany through the middle of the 1940's...As a historian there are several books out there covering this in detail...As for the final outcome of the bombings here's a snippet: the raid had destroyed 24 banks; 26 insurance buildings; 31 stores and retail houses; 6470 shops; 640 warehouses; 256 market halls; 31 large hotels; 26 public houses; 63 administrative buildings; 3 theaters; 18 cinemas; 11 churches; 60 chapels; 50 cultural-historical buildings; 19 hospitals including auxiliary, overflow hospitals, and private clinics; 39 schools; 5 consulates; 1 zoological garden; 1 waterworks, 1 railway facility; 19 postal facilities; 4 tram facilities; 19 ships and barges. Reports also mentioned that the Wehrmacht's main command post in the Tauschenberg Palace, 19 military hospitals and a number of less significant military facilities were destroyed. Almost 200 factories were damaged, 136 seriously (including several of the Zeiss Ikon optical/precision engineering works), 28 with medium to serious damage, and 35 with light damage. I want you to pay CLOSE attention to the non-military structures.
Your posts drip with a minimalists view of the catastrophe. That this event was justified not so much because of the paltry military appeal, but more so due to the 100 potential Jewish lives saved, is pure undiluted ignorance...That you say this is amazing, and that you do so with such conviction is saddening. This was an event resulting in the terrible loss of innocent lives (both Jewish and German). I'm not the only one who agrees. Dr. Gregory H. Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, wrote: " The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes and, as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide". You reference Wikipedia (lol, that's where I go for the truth)quite a bit and other films as the basis for your information (as a historian I have to tell you that is a poor basis for supporting your arguments)....I recommend reading several of the books (yes, several were written by German Jews around the area at the time of the event)...I am MORE than happy to begin you on the path to a thorough WWII historical repertoire with some great books arguing BOTH sides of the story. What you will find, among many other things, is that even Churchill, who approved of the targeting of Dresden and supported the bombing prior to the event, distanced himself from it afterwards and later vocally opposed the bombing. <Longmate "The Strategic Air Offensive against Germany" (SOA), HMSO (1961) vol 3 pp 117-9>. What does that tell you. I cannot believe that you also see fit to condemn the "80%" or so of the citizens there as Nazi supporters/sympathizers...You support this vacuous statement by citing their lack of opposition...Had you a family and been under a fascist regime to the degree that Dresden was at this time, how apt would you have been to be parading the streets marching a protest? I ask you! This DISGUSTS me!!! That you would have the AUDACITY to state this!!! I am a PROUD Jew and it makes me sick to see that there are some within my faith who are so blind as to state this! To subtly disregard the loss of so much life by distance yourself from it through the statement that 100 of our peoples lives were possibly spared as a result...It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to believe this. We are talking about the loss of so much innocent life..The fact that you devalue soooo many innocent lives due to their fear is revolting. I can assure you that had you been in there shoes, and under the same circumstances, you would not have been quick to oppose. It's sad, but fear and the survival of your family can be a powerful influencer. In closing, I suggest that you REALLY buckle down, hit the library, and START RESEARCHING. Get as much information and perspective as possible. Gauging by your prior posts you have a ways to go!!! First, read Slaughterhouse Five. You have little credibility till you have done at least that. I am so disappointed that you are a part of my faith...Please delve into what you have said and the views you portray. I am sure you will have some sort of retort as you just cannot seem to accept that you may be wrong. This is an educated historian telling you that you have some incorrect information....I am also a proud Jew. It is late and I have rambled on to a point of relative non-cohesion and discontinuity, but you are spouting utter nonsense. I ask you again to reference the structure figures listed above and then go on to justify the degree of the bombing. Additionally, to discount another persons opinion because they are 1) Not Jewish and 2) Did not go through what they did was a childish and impotent statement and void of the ravages of intelligence...Did you go through what they did? Then don't ever make a statement like that regarding this topic. Leave this thread as it stands and move on...

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I have since read the book. Vonnegut not being content with just his own experiences he refers to David Irving's, the holocaust denier, book "The Destruction of Dresden" and quotes his figure of 135,000. This number was discredited in the libel trial of 2000 againt Lipstadt. This comes from Wikepedia. I you are really a Jewish historian is this the type of historian you want to get your information.

reply

[–] hunninghake 18 years ago

Heichl....You're not reeeaaading what i'm posssssting!!!! Additionally, several prior postings have also already touched on the fact that Vonnegut had used I have read SEVERAL books specifically on the bombing of Dresden, and no where in my prior post did I state a static, verifiable, number of those killed. In fact, my statement even supports the possibility of your 135K figure being inaccurate (please make sure you pay attention to the arguments poster's are making as you only make yourself look bad!!!!) you're not treading on virgin ground here Heichl..You seem quite content to cite material from Wikipedia...I don't. That aside please read my prior post and you will see that I cite source material from books across a wide range of authors and perspectives, not from one single (and often subjective) site like Wikipedia. If you would pay attention to the gist of my posting you will see that it focuses on the viability of Dresden as a MILITARY TARGET! Whether or not 5000 died or 5 million died is not wholly the point!!! This was not a justifiable military target as per the industries and production of this locale...Also, one needs to focus on the aftermath (aside from the human loss)...You'll see that for an attack focusing on disabling military production, all they succeeded in doing was racking up a hugely disproportionate amount of collateral-damage. I also go into attacking several other incorrect statements you made as well as a flawed perspective in your character...That being the justification for this loss of life as it "potentially" saved the life of around a hundred Jewish citizens...That was a grotesque notion you made Heichl...To close, as a historian (and yes, i'm Jewish) you need to crack a few books, do some surfing (and that not being solely to Wikipedia) and get some perspectives on this event...All that you are doing Heichl is making yourself look like an under-informed, narrow minded imbecile...P.S., could you please clean up your postings as it is taking SEVERAL posters an inordinate amount of time to understand your garbled postings...I look forward to your next posting Heichl as it is always a prime example of ignorance. Considering your last statement was "Well you are not Jewish and didn't have had to go through what they had to go through." I cannot wait to read what you come up with next!!!

reply

[–] Asterixxxx 18 years ago

Heichl has clearly never read Vonnegut. How did the Holocaust get involved here?

And so on...

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I have just finished reading Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five. The bombing of Dresden and the Holocaust did not happen on different parts of the planet or at different times. Dresden's Jewish inhabitants from other like from other German cities were mostly killed by the Nazis with some inhabitants of Dresden helping
to ship them off, while others, the majority, stood quietly by. This has lowered
my sympathy what happened to Dresden although most of you in this group have expressed shock about it. I also commented that a few Jews were saved by the bombing. Many of you have expressed shock that I have showed greater interest of what was happening to Jews in Dresden than others because of the Holocaust. All of you I am sure have expressed in the last few days greater interest in the people killed in Virginia Tech as expressed by the media than those killed in Iraq even though more were killed in Iraq even on the same day the 33 were killed in Virginia Tech, more were killed in Iraq and the two events are completely independent.
Why is this so? If you answer this you will begin to understand what I am saying.

reply

[–] hunninghake 18 years ago

Heichl has pulled all sorts of bias and opinion into this thread with little, or no, backing whatsoever. Heichl claims to have read the book, but, like you, I very much doubt it...The vast majority of this thread has been involved with the utter inability of anyone to talk ANY sense to this person...To be honest, it has been one hilarious comment after another from Heichl...that's what keeps us coming back and directing us towards matters of little or no relevance. Stick around and wait till Heichl's next erroneous and baseless statement..Trust me, IT WILL HAPPEN, and it's worth sticking around for. Appreciate your opinions travsuth! Have a good one, cheers!

reply

[–] Edward_de_Vere 18 years ago

Don't try to reason with heich. He clearly believes that the lives of 100 Jewish civilians are worth more than the lives of thousands of German civilians. If somebody on this messageboard were saying the opposite, he'd be condemned as an irrational bigot, and rightly so. So obviously, one of the major themes in Vonnegut's writings: the fact that there are no black and white heroes or villains, and that the Nazis and Japanese are hardly the only people who committed atrocities, will be completely lost on somebody of Heich's strange sensibilities.

reply

[–] Asterixxxx 18 years ago

But, I am confused.

How are the Jews even remotley involved here?

And so on...

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I thought I answered that in my last post to you. Or do you mean that the Jews are not mentioned much in the movie. The American traitor said dont be so sure
that Dresden would not be bombed because of the Jewish influence on Washington.
Well this movie and the book it is based on is supposed to represent history(i.e. the bombing of Dresden) and when you deal with Germany when under the Nazis one must consider what happened to the Jews by the Nazis.

reply

[–] Asterixxxx 18 years ago

when you deal with Germany when under the Nazis one must consider what happened to the Jews by the Nazis

That is ludicrous. You could also have mentioned the gypsies, but didnt. I think people like you only consider the Nazi's as a single faculty, there were many more sides to the Nazi rule that we don't consider. Especially when talking about the Dresden Bombing.

That is akin to saying that, when you speak of the English, you must also consider what the English did to Boer prisoners of war in the Boer War.

And so on...

reply

[–] negatyve 18 years ago

Vonnegut not being content with just his own experiences he refers to David Irving's, the holocaust denier, book "The Destruction of Dresden" and quotes his figure of 135,000. This number was discredited in the libel trial of 2000 againt Lipstadt.

1) David Irving estimated "150,000 - 200,000" deaths in Dresden, not 135,000.

2) The Irving vs Lipstadt trial happened in 1998, not 2000, and even then what was decided in the trial is completely irrelevant to this argument considering the book was written in 1969 and the film adaptation was made in 1972.

3) You get your information from Wikipedia, which is notoriously inaccurate. It may be fine to use to gather casual information but you lose-by-default any argument over historical fact when you start using wikipedia as your main source.

4) You're a moron. Again and again you stress how important it is for the film to consider the holocaust. It's not a holocaust story, it's not a WWII story, it's a science fiction story that includes a historical event, that's it. By your logic, anyone who writes a story that includes a WWII event that doesn't lament the holocaust is anti-semitic. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. There was more to WWII than the holocaust.

I just don't get what you want? What's your deal? You just seem to be some sort of troll with no common sense.

---
-Negatyve

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

1) The 135,000 figure is quoted Vonneguts's book.

2) I just wanted to stress that David Irving is not reliable and if Vonnegut used him as a source that is not reliable also.

3) Wikipedia gives both sides of the argument. What is it they write is inaccurate. Here we are arguing about historical opinion although some facts are in dispute like the number killed.

4) What made me uncomfortable for the Germans under Hitler were portrayed in too
sympathic light and we are made sorry what happened in Dresden. Therefore I reminded the other posters about the crimes done in the Holocaust not the fact it was not mentioned. It would be similar if someone wrote an article about the
the South Korean who killed 33 people and complained about the people who bullied him without mentioning his murders. I am quite comfortable with a movie
like Casablanca where there is no mention about Jews.

reply

[–] benjamin_anderson 18 years ago

Buddy, were you in Dresden during the bombing? No? Didn't think so. Well, Vonnegut was, and he painted the picture as he felt he should. Not all Germans were evil, and many on the Allied side were equally immoral. Dehumanizing the Germans is the same as dehumanizing the Jews. A lot of PEOPLE died the firebombing, and it is not okay simply because they were Germans.

_________________________________
THE PROPOSITION

reply

[–] negatyve 18 years ago

Wow, After reading the OPs post it's clear that he has absolutely no comprehension of what the book is about.

OP,
You watched a movie based on a book. It doesn't do well at capturing all of the themes of the book. If you read the book, or even understood the movie, you would know that this isn't a World War 2 movie. Vonnegut uses his own experiences as being a prisoner in a Dresden Slaughterhouse during the bombing as a plot point to tie together an philosophical exploration of fate and the self-destructiveness of mankind. He could have used any tragic event to tell the same story but he wrote about what he knew.

Clearly the philosophical exploration of fatalism and the self-destructive tendency of mankind, the real meat of the story, went well over your head. This is not a story about the holocaust or the war but a story exploring whether or not we have free will or if we're just driven by inertia and fate, if tragedies like the bombing of Dresden are inevitable or not.

Beside that, your argument is ridiculous. Just because Palestine has some terrorists does that mean all Palestinians are evil and that the wholesale destruction of Jenin (and all of the innocent people who died) is justifiable. What about My Lai? Fallujah? ect ect ect. I guess anyone who writes a story that includes WWII and doesn't lament on the holocaust is an anti-semite.

But then again you went to see the movie because you heard it had science fiction and sex... Not because it was an adaptation of one of the greatest American novels ever written.

Get a clue (and a brain wouldn't hurt either).

-Negatyve

reply

[–] lucio7 18 years ago

i think it's great for that: till some years ago nobody knew about the military useless bombing of the german cities. up to these days few knows.

knowin and remembering doesn't mean forgetting the german atrocities.

knowing about the german atrocities doesn't mean hiding the allied mistakes(where mistakes=hundreds of thousands of uslesse civilians murdering).

sorry for the poor english.

reply

[–] Kirsten93 18 years ago

first of all, I'm not going to justify Nazi-ism...and yes, I am German. Second of all, imagine the Americans (and yes, I hold a double citizenship and am American as well), lost the war in Iraq (which turned out to be world war 3...just imagine, i know it won't happen...) Americans had no money, were starving, and were constantly being ridiculed. Americans had been forced to sign a treaty which made them not rebuiled their army, lose Texas, California, Alaska, and...say...Wyoming. Along comes soon-to-be President Johnny (sorry if your name is Johnny...hey, Adolf was a common name too). He tells Americans all about how we are NOT a bad country. We are strong, and can come back from our slump and dont need to take any more crap from anyone. He stands for strong family values and wants anyone to be able to eat. He forgets to mention at first that, by the way, he hates...say...families who homeschool (again, sry if anyone is homeschooled, I'm making a scenario here). Yeah, this guy is wrong, but would you buy it. Oh, and by the way, you find out to late that if you decide to disagree with him, you die. Ok, end of my stupid scenario. My point is, would you justify the bombing of Dallas? (once more, sry if anyone's from Dallas, I truley dont want it to be bombed and would feel terrible). Like another poster said, I believe in a small thing called morals. I'm sorry taht your family members died, and I agree that its horrible, but I also know that Jews teach a little thing called forgivness.

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

As I have posted before, my grandfather fought in WWI on the German side as did many other German Jews. Therefore they are not to blame in any way for the German's loss in WWI. The Germans today have finally managed to get things right
in their country and live well. However they should not complain about the things that happened to them when they were run by and for the most part supported evil rulers.
My distant relative Theodor Duesterberg, who was of Jewish descent, ran in the presidental elections of 1932 and came fourth in a four man race as head of the
Stahlhelm. This party was also very right wing and nationalistic and probably wanted fascism without the extreme antisemitism of the Nazis. So the
Germans had choices. I bet all of you who claim to be so knowledgeable have never heard of him.

reply

[–] Kirsten93 18 years ago

I'm not even going to argue with you...you obviously have no capacity to forgive and can only hold grudges anyway.

reply

[–] redskiesz 18 years ago

Everyone is missing the point. You all seem to be arguing which bombing or event in WWII was worse, and using that as the reasoning behind why something was not as bad.

No. The bombing of Dresden was awful. Auschwitz was awful. The bombing of London was awful. The bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima was awful... and on, and on, and on.. you get my point.

Now why are you so upset at one movie that says the bombing of Dresden was awful, just because it wasn't as bad as something else that happened (say... I dunno, let's pull something from my above list.. the bombing of London)? Come on. They are both horrible parts of HUMAN history and instead of some sort of biased, revisionist historian approach, why can't we just appreciate a movie that denounces bad things that happen to people?

reply

[–] heich1 18 years ago

I think you are missing the point. The bombing of London and Auschwitz preceeded
the bombing of Dresden. If the Germans under the Nazis were peaceloving people
who didn't kill people because of their race the bombing of Dresden would have been a severe crime. But you know this not to be true. You like many others in this group are saying the bad actions of criminals is the same moral value as punishing the criminals.

reply

[–] redskiesz 18 years ago

I don't really care what preceeded what, my previous post didn't give you that hint? I was just saying we are allowed to, and should, denounce EVERY violent act in the world, not just the ones the bad guys do.

So... let me make up this story, and see how you feel about it, since you posed all these great stories in the beginning.

Imagine the world decides to say the US are criminals for the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War. Now, imagine someone "punishing" the criminals, in this case, a firebombing of New York City. Tons of people die, those who oppose the US's decisions, those who support it, those too young to care, etc., all dead.

Now if the USA were "criminals" in that situation, that bombing was okay then, according to you? Because you just gotta punish the criminals, right?

reply

[–] Dsimm020 17 years ago

I think everyone missed the point of Slaughterhouse-Five.

Sh*t happens!
In life, people live and sh*t just happens.
It doesn't matter the title: German, Nazi, American, Communist, German-American, Pacifist, Canadian... in the end we are all humans capable of both good and evil and we will all experience good times and bad times.

The point of blame is irrelevant in this context.
"There is no how, there is no why, the moment simply is."

reply