On page 14, Terkel poses the question of whether or not a society has to experience horror in order to understand horror. What do you think? Do you believe that to understand a certain event, one has to experience the event personally? Or do you think one can understand a horrific experience without having gone through the experience personally? Why do you think this? Can you give examples supporting your idea? What are those examples?

On page 52, Red discusses the death of five-hundred allied soldiers at the hands of other allied soldiers. How often, according to various parts of the book, did this happen? Can you find other examples of such a problem? Describe them in detail. Do you think such events still happen in war? Why? Do you believe such events are acceptable parts of war? Why or why not?

In "Tales of the...