In the first chapter of Slaughterhouse-Five, the narrator meets an old war friend, Bernard V. O'Hare, who served with him during the World War. II and also witnessed the bombing of Dresden. The narrator, after trying to write a novel based on his experiences from that time for many years, hoped that between the two of them they could find some good war stories to incorporate into his novel. After many failed attempts to find something substantial on which to base his novel, the two men failed, because "there is nothing intelligent to say about a massacre" (19). Instead, the most important thing anyone imagined that night was from someone who hadn't even served in the war. Mary O'Hare, Bernard's wife, was opposed to the war, "it was the war that made her so angry", and feared that, through the narrator's story, he would make the war "just wonderful, so we will have many more.” of them” (15, 14). Upon hearing Mary's outburst, the narrator promised her that "there would be no role for Frank Sinatra or John Wayne" in her account of her experiences during the war (15). Instead, the narrator promised that he would title his novel "The Children's Crusade", subtitled by Slaughterhouse-Five, and dedicated the novel to him. While Slaughterhouse-Five may not have any characters that Sinatra or Wayne would be suited to play, it does contain many characters who hold pro-war views. In many ways, the narrator's honest portrayal of characters who view the war in a positive light or who attempt to justify the bombing of Dresden works against them. The narrator, for the most part, does not attempt to rebuke or criticize these views, but rather represents them in all their unflinching honesty. By emphasizing the inhumanity and cruelty of these characters...... middle of paper ......more sympathetic than Eaker towards those who lost their lives in the Dresden attack. Saundy believed "that the bombing of Dresden was a great tragedy that no one could deny" and that it was unnecessary to the Allies' efforts to win the war (187). However, he defends those who directed the bombings, saying that they "were neither evil nor cruel" but were forced to make a difficult decision at a decisive moment in the war (187). Saundy presents a much more humane view of the bombing of Dresden than Eaker. Saundy does not attempt to justify or condemn the bombing; rather, he describes it as one of the many horrors of war that can only be viewed as such in retrospect. These official assessments suggest that "the military responsible for such massacres is not acting out of malice but out of confused values ​​that prevent them from seeing simpler moral truths" (Reed, 54).