Trump vs the World

Recently my son and I were discussing Donald Trump. We both detest the man, and cringe if our political opinions align with something Trump says. But my son is young. He's an optimist. When I saw the rally on CNN in 2015, before Trump had even announced his intention to seek the nomination, I told my son I was worried because he would win. My son didn't believe it. And later, when Trump single-handedly decimated the Republican leadership pool for a generation, I told my son I thought he'd win the election. Despite my assertion, we were both astounded when he actually did.

 

Now, not quite two months in, my son is sure that despite everything, Trump can't ruin America. On most things political, I defer to him. He knows history, the constitution, the actual workings of the political machinery. He loves America. Admires the political system. He's a smart kid. But on Trump, he's wrong.

 

We all know that Trump is an anomaly. The rules of basic human interaction and decorum don't apply and obviously neither do the political conventions that have helped shape the western world as we know it. Yes, Trump can ruin America. In fact, he has the power to ruin the world.

 

On one hand, we have the GOP, giddy with power, acquiescing to Trump and (with a few exceptions) falling all over themselves to defend the indefensible. To my mind, Trump is always indefensible. As ad hominem a statement as that might be -- it's my blog and that's how I feel. These Republican politicians seem eager to stand by their leader regardless of how hapless his moves and bizarre his behavior, applauding politely from the sidelines at announcements that should make them pause.

 

Despite Trump's relatively normal demeanour during a joint address to congress, he is both an enigma and a threat by virtue of his capricious and unstable personality. And let's remember who lurks behind his curtain. While some of the people who Trump has surrounded himself with are not in league with the devil, more are. Those who see themselves as simply serving their country, are not strong enough personalities to challenge the new status quo.

 

On the other hand, so many political actions are in fact, reactions. Rather than being sound policy, some laws and even entire belief systems are a response to past policy. Germany today, with its open borders and extreme hate laws, is still reacting to Hitler and its Nazi past. One can argue whether the law against Holocaust denial is good for preventing hate or bad for assailing free speech, but it exists because of Germany's history.

 

Within the confines of law and politics, I don't believe that Trump alone can ruin America. I do believe that because he is extreme in everything he does, reactions to him are also extreme. As time goes on, regardless of his stance on issues, moderate people all over the world, not wanting to be tied to his brand of 'conservatism' will edge further and further away from positions that Trump taints by holding them. People whose vision is already decidedly to the other extreme, will be emboldened, perceiving their views, regardless how extreme the other way, as being the only decent and respectable ones.

 

To begin, Trump has destroyed the possibility of discussing borders and immigration rationally in the same way Nazism prevents Germans from taking anything less than its polar opposite stance. And with Trump, that was just the campaign. The first week's work solidified it and it only gets weirder from here.

 

Trump alone can't change America or the world, but strange and extreme alliances are bound to form as part of the 'resistance' to Trump. The societal shift that causes, and the changes it brings, will be no better than the world the resisters fear that Trump will foist upon them, but at least they will be able to feel good about themselves.

 

canadianna

Revised does not equal 'Revisionist'

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

Maybe you had to be there

While looking into our own War Museum's approach to the role of Bomber Command during WWII, I came across a site in Britain, detailing a recent exhibit in Manchester, England. The Imperial War Museum's air war display closed recently. It was called AGAINST ALL ODDS. When I read the piece I marvelled at their disparate ways in which this period in our common history have been portrayed.

The exhibit at the Imperial War Museum didn't omit facts -- it presented Germany's estimated death toll and examined German losses, but its focus was on the accomplishments of Bomber Command despite the risks, hardship, privations and fear faced by the airmen. It treated the fliers with respect and honour.

"Against The Odds is the first major exhibition to look at the role of Bomber Command. From the first day of the Second World War until the Allied invasion of Germany in 1944, the bombing of Germany and allied countries in the Second World War by British and American forces made a vital contribution to the defeat of the Nazis. Bomber Command was the only British force to strike directly at the enemy's homeland.

"They came from across the Commonwealth, and alongside the United States Air Force, their role was the destruction of Germany's industrial, economic and military strength.

"But the cost was great: 55, 888 Bomber Command personnel were killed in action or on active service. 51 out of every 100 flyers did not return."
Michael Simpson, Head of Exhibitions at Imperial War Museum North

Whether it's the length of time that's elapsed since WWII, or Canada's physical distance from the action in WWII, or simply that we have scarcely seen hostilities on our soil in nearly 200 years, the Canadian War Museum's plaque, AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY -- is a painful example of historical contrition without benefit of sufficiently balanced background information. The cries of neutrality are strained when presented against the entirety of the display. This sermonizing and genuflecting at the altar of anti-war zealotry seems an effort to distance ourselves from our true military past. It's like an act of penance to purge a national sin.

Canada's Veterans are a humble lot. They aren't inclined to glorify war or their own contributions. Most of them are anti-war because they've been there and they know war firsthand. The War Museum has been entrusted with the preservation of their stories inside the framework of the war itself. The Museum's unyielding attachment to this paragraph, and its unbalanced display, despite the offense and injury to our Veterans, is unfathomable. Our Veterans don't deserve to be treated as though their service is an asterisk in the war effort. They don't deserve to feel as though they are trying to keep skeletons in the closet.

Contrast this paragraph with the above text from the Imperial War Museum:

"The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead, and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

The author of this paragraph is unable to think outside post-1960s assumptions about war -- all war. He has failed as an historian, because he has been unable to see the world from the perspective of his subject. At the outset, he has told us of a debate, and we expect balance because he has indicated that there are two sides to the role and the outcome of Bomber Command's mission -- but then he presents only one. If this were fictional, I might call it author intrusion. The writer wants so badly for the reader to take a particular point of view, that despite claiming objectivity, he provides limited scope and gives speculation and conjecture in the form of 'fact'. It is irresponsible at best and it is unethical at worst.

In defense of the paragraph, Dean F. Oliver says:

The text panel, "An Enduring Controversy," has attracted more public attention than any other, but it reflects the museum's overall approach. (...) Nowhere in this approach -- and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans -- does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

It has been suggested that the Museum can't ignore 'difficult subjects' and that it's 'dangerous' to 'rewrite history' which implies the Veterans want the facts expunged from the display. What the Veterans really want, is for 'facts' to be presented at all. This plaque stands as a summary of the exhibit. It is general idea that visitors will take from the display. The people who run the War Museum have taken an intractable stance against the Royal Canadian Legion about this paragraph and the photographs chosen to reveal the story.

Let's look at the 'facts'.

First, most historians put the German civilian losses in a range from 350,000 to 600,000. Both are huge numbers, but the War Museum has taken the high-end estimate and used it as a factual total, and yet there is no accepted 'factual' total -- only estimates. The decision to use the high estimate without explaining that totals are impossible to ascertain, renders the credibility of the whole display suspect. It suggests the authors intended to lead visitors in a particular direction.

Second, by belittling the mission, it implies there was no reasoning behind the bombing, when in fact the strategy was used only after others had failed. Daylight raids had resulted in huge losses for the Allies early on in the war, so Britain used the Lancaster and Halifax Bombers, which were heavy and meant to be flown at night -- night bombing means area bombing. Little chance of pinpoint accuracy, but a better chance of getting the load off at all, without being shot down. Bomber Command put the safety of their fliers above the civilians of an enemy population bent on total war against all non-Germanic peoples. It was the only rational way to fight the war. Any other decision would have meant the deaths of more crews. As it was, even using night-bombing 51 out of every 100 fliers were killed in action. The Americans tried daylight, pinpoint bombing. It lasted less than a year -- not much longer than Bomber Command's initial attempts early in the war. The losses were simply too great. Later in the war, there were finally Allied troops on the ground in Europe and technology was moving ahead. Precision bombing became doable without being suicide. Strategy changed.

Third, it is misleading to say that "the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war."

Germany's production continued throughout the war because Germany had invaded all its neighbours and used their factories and workers to build munitions.
How many more guns, planes, bullets, mines, tanks, and V-bombs could they have built without the continuous disruptions of manufacturing and shipping lines by Bomber Command?
How much longer might the war have lasted?
How many more Allied soldiers and civilians might have been killed had bombing raids never happened?
How many more innocent people could have been sent to the ovens?

The War Museum plaque doesn't even ask these questions, let alone attempt to answer them. This is the synopsis, yet it has ignored issues which are imperative to understanding the role of Bomber Command.

AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY, the paragraph, is more "bitterly contested" than the rest of the Bomber Command display in its totality. Despite Director Oliver's assurance to the contrary, it is at the very least incomplete and because of that, it is indeed, disrespectful. The Museum's unwavering attachment to it, despite the anguish it has caused many Veterans, is shameful and unreasonable.

This is not about free speech. This is about presenting history realistically. No one wants to purge the historical record of evidence and facts, but our Veterans don't deserve to be equated with their wartime enemy. This display might be the only information a visitor will ever see or hear on the air war. Questioning their morality and belittling the value of their mission gives the impression of parity between the actions of the Nazis and those of Bomber Command.

It doesn't serve history well to ignore the painful parts, but neither does it serve our understanding of the past to take a sliver of time and interpret it, without conveying a sense of the historic reality. At least a century's distance from acts of war on Canadian soil has allowed us the illusion of being 'peacemaker' and 'peacekeeper' of the world. In order to reconcile its vision of our nice country with reality, the War Museum has chosen to pull a chapter from a bloody, protracted war and unjustly use it as a Scarlet 'A'.

And yet the Museum still doesn't understand the fuss. The Brits and the Veterans lived it. Maybe some people would have had to be there to get it.

canadianna

Degrees of morality at the War Museum

Don Martin wrote again about the Royal Canadian Legion's fight against one of the exhibits at the Canadian War Museum. Martin is of the opinion that Vets are wrong to object to the wording of the contentious "An Enduring Controversy" display. Needless to say I think he's wrong as usual.

The exhibit in question attempts to give perspective and background to the role of Bomber Command and the air war prior to D-Day. This quote from the War Museum backgrounder is meant to set out the museum's position that they have handled this exhibition respectfully and accurately:

The panel states, essentially, that the morality and value of the Allies' strategic bombing campaign continues to be the subject of intense debate, that the raids achieved a high level of physical destruction throughout Germany, and that they failed to reduce substantially German war production until the later months of the war.

While arguing that this display is balanced because the Museum is simply reflecting the reality that the 'morality' and 'value' of the raids are debatable, they present as FACT that the raids were largely ineffective. If the value of the raids is subject to 'intense debate' why are they saying unequivocally that the raids were largely a failure? If the backgrounder is an accurate telling of what the display holds, a visitor might well come away believing not that the raids were 'controversial' but that they were IN FACT ineffective because that's what the display says. And yet we're told it's a point for debate . . . obviously it's a debate in which the CWM has decided to draw the correct conclusion for us.

Does it really shock them that the Veterans would take issue with such a poorly constructed idea?

Now, if the raids were ineffective, but caused 'large-scale physical destruction' of Germany -- it doesn't take a huge leap to realize that it is being broadly hinted that the raids were also 'immoral'. Such pervasive, continuous, long-term devastation resulted -- and yet without fulfilling any significant military goals. The question becomes why did they keep doing it if it didn't have value to the war effort? Weighed against the civilian death toll, what's a bunch of ineffective destruction?

Where's the debate?

Where's the side that says that the bombing drew resources and attention away from other battles and fronts and perhaps saved hundreds of thousands of allied soldiers and civilians because of weapons never built and shipments that never reached their destinations. Where is the side that says that had the Allies not persisted in bombing, D-Day might never have been possible because the Germans would likely been able to hold the Allies off using the resources that would not have been destroyed in the raids? Apparently that's there. Sort of. The backgrounder doesn't give details, but it says:

The display presents an important episode in Canadian military history, some strategic perspective, relevant military details, and personal testimonies. These individual elements combine to give visitors a clear sense of the historical importance and continuing relevance of Canadian contributions to the air war.

If the display is as limited in its perspective as the backgrounder suggests, it has not presented a debate. It has stated that there is debate, and then it has pronounced its own version of truth.

But what really must irk the veterans is the suggestion that their actions were immoral. IMMORAL. That there's even a debate about this is an insult.

Don Martin thinks not -- he says:

The veterans went to great lengths to decipher defamatory meanings in seemingly innocuous words, argue the exhibit paints them as war criminals and insist it shows more empathy for civilian deaths than their casualties. (...) Unfortunately, despite being a class-act crowd, the veterans did not change my mind.

Is it really that hard to understand that it isn't the facts that are the main point of contention?

Questioning the morality of the participants is what has drawn their ire. It isn't just the morality of the mission the CWM is challenging -- which would be bad enough -- it is the morality of those airmen who obeyed orders as part of the bombing campaign. It stands to reason that if the raids were immoral, then so were its perpetrators -- and we've already established the CWM understanding of 'debate'. Following orders is not an excuse for immoral behaviour in the military. If the raids were immoral, we must conclude that so were our fliers. Maybe. But because we don't know for sure, that means the display is balanced.

How can we place modern day value judgments on the air raids of WWII? How can we make judgments at all without viewing the war in its totality, and purging ourselves of the knee-jerk anti-war sentiments that have coloured our perspective of all of our military history? The CWM insists:

This (display) cannot be done selectively, by ignoring difficult subjects.

It is one thing to say that 'today, we would not use these tactics' but the emphasis has to be on the fact that in those times, in those circumstances, those raids were not immoral. Context is essential, and although the backgrounder says it provides context and lauds the sacrifices of our servicemen, it's a backhanded commendation when this display has as its focus and first comments, the dubious morality of the events. The subject matter is not difficult --- the slant is.

The concentration camps were immoral.
The starvation and execution of our POWs at the hands of the Germans was immoral.

Those who run the War Museum might contend that they are not equating our fliers with the people who perpetrated those atrocities -- but then, what degree of immorality would they attribute to our airmen and their mission?

Germans have acknowledged and apologized for the events of the holocaust, but never have they questioned the morality of their war tactics against Britain. They have never hinted at regret about our POWs. We're not talking here of one-sided, wanton murder -- this was WAR!! Is there anything moral about war? If you've answered no, then get off the idea that these men are somehow deserving of this kind of particular and negative scrutiny in the morality department.

The backgrounder goes on to say:

In part as a result of public comments and suggestions, including consultations with veterans of the air war, the CWM subsequently added material defining the term "strategic bombing" itself and explaining the military-political context in which its use became commonplace. We also added the three first-person quotations mentioned above, additional material on the German resources drained from other fronts by the Allied air campaign, and a photograph of a massive German flak (anti-aircraft) tower. (...) Nowhere in this approach, and certainly not in any of our dialogues with veterans, does the Canadian War Museum see fundamental contradictions between presenting history as accurately as possible and remembering respectfully those whose actions in peace and war have done so much to shape this country.

To pretend that this is about historical accuracy is disingenuous. It isn't. The display would have been just as accurate without impugning the integrity, character and morality of those who served in Bomber Command. There is no other way to interpret the suggestion of immorality. It taints everything else. It is not fact, it is a value judgment -- and it is a damaging one.

Don Martin said in March:

But after five prominent historians vetted and vindicated the wording, the only quibble from one was to wonder if the agreed-upon facts were worthy of public presentation and, thus, preservation. (...) Damn right they are. This is Canada, not a place like China where history is subject to periodic revision by the ruling class to create non-persons or purge unpleasant events from the record. Our history is factual, not popular fiction.

Unpleasant truths? This isn't the Somalia scandal. What is he implying the Veterans want to purge? They don't want to destroy the record -- they want to have the facts presented without Monday-morning-quarterbacks saying they were wrong to have done what they did, because their side of the 'debate' says they weren't. Is that side presented in the display?

Martin went on to say:

Lest we forget, 10,000 crew members in Bomber Command died defending our freedom. And nobody said that excluded freedom of speech.

So clever to use their sacrifices as a weapon against them -- but where is their voice in all this 'freedom of speech'?

Those who run the War Museum politely resent their efforts being deemed 'disrespectful', so they've set up the backgrounder to set out their point of view.

Gosh, imagine how they'd feel if they were veterans and their wartime service and that of their fallen comrades, was held up as possibly 'immoral' and definitely 'without value'.
They'd probably like to see the record set straight.

canadianna