In today's National Post, historian Randall Hansen takes issue with the War Museum's recent decision to replace the controversial plaque about Bomber Command. Yesterday the National Post quotes Randall as calling the decision 'craven' and 'appalling'. He went so far as to say that attempts to deny the plaque's accuracy are 'absolutely Stalinist' and 'Orwellian'.
I've already posted my opinion on the plaque, here and here.
The plaque in question is poorly worded because it purports to be a neutral commentary on Bomber Command but then goes on to draw a negative conclusion about the Canadian air campaign against Germany. The plaque draws a reader's attention to the 'enduring controversy' regarding 'the morality and value' of the air strikes and then wraps up by drawing the conclusion that the raids were ineffective except in their slaughter of innocent civilians. Hansen might believe the conclusion is factual, but then why does the plaque pretend the issue is controversial if this conclusion is unequivocally true?
Hansen is an historian who has written about this period in our history. He comes to the issue armed with research and an agenda -- to propagate ideas he set out in his book. He sneers at Cliff Chadderton who has taken offense at both the content and the tone of the plaque. Hansen accuses him of not having read, or having read his history poorly.
What Mr. Hansen fails to realize is that as clever and well-read as he is and with all that education and research under his belt, the War Museum is not meant for him. It wasn't built to satisfy his interpretation of the air war and, he's right, it wasn't meant to assuage the souls of Vets. It was meant to inform.
The plaque in question does not inform -- it leads. It wording of the plaque leads the reader to the one conclusion -- that despite their actions being militarily ineffective, Canadians continued to bomb the hell out of poor innocent German civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of them. It gives no indication of Bomber Command's losses or limitations -- it simply leaves the modern reader with the impression that it was unnecessary and wrong -- not controversial -- unnecessary and wrong.
A school kid reading the plaque -- which, let's be clear, is the defining statement of the display -- would have no grasp of the total war, no sense of the intractability of the enemy, little understanding of the limitations of the technology of the day, small idea of the risks of pinpoint bombing, and minimal awareness of the huge Bomber Command losses (51 out of every 100 airmen were killed in action). That school kid might move further along in the display and see some of these facts mentioned somewhere -- but not in relation to the destruction and death described in the centrepiece plaque. This kid is likely to conclude that Bomber Command was wantonly murderous. What else could someone who is not an expert think after reading that plaque?
Hansen uses words like 'craven', 'appalling', 'Stalinist' and 'Orwellian' to describe the veterans' attempts to have the plaque reworded. He uses hyperbole to defend something so small and insignificant as an opinion -- yet he doesn't understand why the veterans are compelled to defend their honour, their service and their sacrifices for this country. It's academic tunnel vision.
canadianna
I've already posted my opinion on the plaque, here and here.
The plaque in question is poorly worded because it purports to be a neutral commentary on Bomber Command but then goes on to draw a negative conclusion about the Canadian air campaign against Germany. The plaque draws a reader's attention to the 'enduring controversy' regarding 'the morality and value' of the air strikes and then wraps up by drawing the conclusion that the raids were ineffective except in their slaughter of innocent civilians. Hansen might believe the conclusion is factual, but then why does the plaque pretend the issue is controversial if this conclusion is unequivocally true?
Hansen is an historian who has written about this period in our history. He comes to the issue armed with research and an agenda -- to propagate ideas he set out in his book. He sneers at Cliff Chadderton who has taken offense at both the content and the tone of the plaque. Hansen accuses him of not having read, or having read his history poorly.
What Mr. Hansen fails to realize is that as clever and well-read as he is and with all that education and research under his belt, the War Museum is not meant for him. It wasn't built to satisfy his interpretation of the air war and, he's right, it wasn't meant to assuage the souls of Vets. It was meant to inform.
The plaque in question does not inform -- it leads. It wording of the plaque leads the reader to the one conclusion -- that despite their actions being militarily ineffective, Canadians continued to bomb the hell out of poor innocent German civilians, killing hundreds of thousands of them. It gives no indication of Bomber Command's losses or limitations -- it simply leaves the modern reader with the impression that it was unnecessary and wrong -- not controversial -- unnecessary and wrong.
A school kid reading the plaque -- which, let's be clear, is the defining statement of the display -- would have no grasp of the total war, no sense of the intractability of the enemy, little understanding of the limitations of the technology of the day, small idea of the risks of pinpoint bombing, and minimal awareness of the huge Bomber Command losses (51 out of every 100 airmen were killed in action). That school kid might move further along in the display and see some of these facts mentioned somewhere -- but not in relation to the destruction and death described in the centrepiece plaque. This kid is likely to conclude that Bomber Command was wantonly murderous. What else could someone who is not an expert think after reading that plaque?
Hansen uses words like 'craven', 'appalling', 'Stalinist' and 'Orwellian' to describe the veterans' attempts to have the plaque reworded. He uses hyperbole to defend something so small and insignificant as an opinion -- yet he doesn't understand why the veterans are compelled to defend their honour, their service and their sacrifices for this country. It's academic tunnel vision.
canadianna
3 comments:
"Hansen might believe the conclusion is factual, but then why does the plaque pretend the issue is controversial if this conclusion is unequivocally true?"
Sadly, there are plenty of things that are unequivocally true but still "controversial". Frankly, sometimes people just don't want to hear the truth. Sometimes they even actively fight to avoid having the truth spread.
I like an idea from another blogger as to what we should write on that plaque. It's contemporary with the raids, and comes straight from the mouth of Arthur "Bomber" Harris, who described the goal of Bomber Command as:
"The destruction of German cities; the killing of German workers; and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany. It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories."
Then we can leave it to the reader to decide if the razing of cities and wholesale destruction of lives in order to sap your enemy's will to fight is "moral" or "controversial".
Frankly, we would never be having this conversation about whether or not the German raids on Coventry (which killed about 1500 people) were "controversial". Yet somehow it's "revisionist" to acknowledge that the firebombing of Hamburg (40,000 dead, 1 million made homeless) or Dresden (25,000-30,000 dead, over 78,000 homes destroyed) or many other raids on German cities intended to cause wanton destruction and terror are considered "controversial".
However, if you're not convinced by the historians that this bombing campaign was (and remains) controversial, and of questionabble morality, perhaps you'd take the word of Winston Churchill, in a memo sent to the British Chiefs of staff and the Chief of the Air Staff (after the firebombing of Dresden):
"It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land… The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests than that of the enemy.
The Foreign Secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle-zone, rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction, however impressive."
Area bombing of German cities was controversial enough that WINSTON CHURCHILL decided it had gone too far, and called it off. I simply don't have a problem with a plaque that acknowledges the enduring controversy and questionable morality and value of a campaign Churchill himself once described as a strategy of "terror and wanton destruction".
None of which is the fault of the veterans of course. There was nothing immoral or controversial about them doing their duty. There morality is not impugned by the fact that they were sent on a mission intended to destroy cities and terrorize the population. The MISSION was immoral, and controversial, not the men who carried it out.
TangoJuliette sez:
Any attempt today, to wrap 1939-1945 WWII reality in the 2007 awarenesses, sensiblities, understandings and sensivities is more than likely to prove contentious and untenable.
Consider the likelihood that War, and the taking of the life of another human being, to be "immoral."
Consider too, the likelihood that the Versaille Treaty set the stage, while Hitler set into motion, much if not all, of what followed, especially 1939 - 1945. The years of unreletning aerial attacks and V-2 Rocket attacks showered down upon the UK proved to be just a small part of the problem.
It is a well-documented fact that the German invasions of Nations of Europe, Mid-Eastern-, and Eastern-Europe, as well as Russia, major portions of Asia Minor, the Mediterranean Nations and North African Countries, did not occur bloodlessly.
The take-overs proved to be nothing more than mere introductions to the true and brutal nature of the Nazis.
We, then known as "The ALLIED Forces," finally stood our ground and got around to fighting back, Marquis of Queensbury Rules be damned. Today, as Canadians, we may choose to delude ourselves into taking some small measure of comfort, by laying-off the blame of the German Bombings, upon the Americans.
But it must be definitvely and clearly declared: the American were our Allies, therefore, WE - The Allied forces, did the deeds.
The Legacy from WWII is mind-numbing: There exist at least six million lost souls of Jewish background. As well, there exist tens of millions more lost souls, of various nationalities,ethnicities, races, lifestyles, beliefs and faiths. All victims of Nazi atrocities and brutality.
Yesterday's victims have no voice. The German victims of Allied bombings would undoubtedly have chosen to be spared. So too, the many victims of Nazi atrocities across Europe of this era, should likewise have undoubtedly preferred to be spared.
In our current museum/history/veteran argument, one element has been neglected. Coldly put - we've neglected the "numbers" game.
To staunch any further losses of lives of Allied Civilians and Troops, the killing of vast numbers of Germans was required. In the end, this "body count" war of attrition approach seemed to have proven successful.
Successful, until we discovered The Death-Camps, that is; until we uncovered the truth, which our earlier attempts at apeasement had overlooked.
today might not be a bad time for historians to climb down of their high horses, and perhaps, for once, pay some heed to what lies behind the words of the few remaining surviving Allied combattants of WWII.
tj
What Mr. Hansen and some of the other writers fail to see is that in all wars the war machine requires the support of the civilian population to continue the war. Who makes the bullets and bombs? Civilians do. Without the support of the populace the war machine cannot function. The only wars that are conclusively won are those where the opposing countries are decimated. When civilians are spared major destruction they usually resort to another war in the near future. World Wars I and II are a prime example. If the civilian population is decimated the war machine quickly disintegrates. Civilians are, and should be, a legitimate target in war.
RG
Post a Comment