![]()
Through Audible, I’ve been listening to the audiobook of Kurt Vonnegut Jr’s classic Slaughterhouse-Five recently. It’s a great reading by Ethan Hawke (seriously, he does a great job), and I’ve read the book before, so this is my second time through the world of the book, and that always offers up a different experience (particularly in this case, as it’s an audiobook). In any event, something hasn’t been sitting quite right with me.
(From here on I’m going to be talking in very abstract terms about extremely large casualty reports from World War II…if the thought of this kind of destruction disturbs you (as it rightfully should), stop reading now).
In recent years I’ve casually done a bit of World War II reading, and Vonnegut’s first-hand account of the firebombing of Dresden certainly sounds accurate (and other research backs him up as to the extent of the destruction), but his argument that the attack caused over 120,000 casualties (many of whom were refugee women and children) didn’t seem right. If you consider that the bombing of Hiroshima caused 80,000, this would make Dresden significantly more destructive than the dropping of an atomic bomb (Vonnegut even says as much in the book).
Now, when this book was written in 1969, the bombing wasn’t widely known or reported, making this an extremely important literary work, and outside of that, it’s one of the most significant of the 20th century. However, as I suspected, Vonnegut’s casualty figures came from a questionable source. I poked around a bit, and sure enough, his source was David Irving’s The Destruction of Dresden. David Irving is a Holocaust denier, and a writer who at one point (such as when Slaughterhouse-Five was written) was considered to be a respected historian. Since then however his figures are generally assumed to be overstated across the board as part of a political agenda (read the Anti-Defamation League’s file on Irving for more on that).
The more accurate assessment of the casualties at Dresden is in the 20,000 - 30,000 range. Does this change the impact of the book? Not really. Certain passages take on a different tone, and the general argument that Dresden was a potential war crime has less of an impact now than it did when the book was published with these figures (personally I think more substantial arguments can be made for either the firebombing of Tokyo or the dropping of a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, but that’s just me).
So yes, it’s still a great book, but one that needs to be read with an ear to historical accuracy. I’m between Stephen Ambrose books at the moment (I just finished Band of Brothers recently, and am moving on to D-Day next), and this makes a good counterpoint to his accounts of the war, which certainly don’t shy away from the ugly side of things, but focus more on tales of heroism and camaraderie than potential crimes against humanity.



