War Museum Controversy and Follow-up Thread [merged]

[the 48th regulator]

Its funny you should ask that.  Tim Cook was giving us a presentation just last week and that was a question that was asked of him.  In responce, he was telling us a story about a complaint he received from a veteran of the Korean war about this.  The veteran had conceded to Cook that the information was likely accurate, but asked why it needed to be there.  The veteran had brought his grand children into the museam on a tour and mentioned that the venereal disease issue was a tad embarrasing...

I dont know what to say about that honestly.  Sure it happened, but, its got to be awfully akward for the veteran in that situation.  The question I would ask about this type of issue is, how relevent is it to the display that they have up there?  Is it a central part of the story they are telling?  Does it add any value?  I dont have the answers to those questions.

But, what I can say is, one of the first things we learn as historians is, the practice of history is just as much about what to leave out, as it is to decide what to include.  Even when you are writing a book about the Korean War for example.  You just cant squeeze the entire war into one book so you have to decide what your intent is, what your central theme or argument is, and then vet each detail and ask the above questions.  Essentially, how does this tidbit of info fit into my thesis?  If it doesnt really fit, maybe its best left for a future book.

I realize I just said a whole lot without answering the question directly.  But hopefully the above creates a bit of an understanding as to the process historians try to go through.

The positive to this is, there are different approaches and room for different interpretations to our history, and these interpretations will tend to change from generation to generation, even though the facts remain the same (baring a discovery of new evidence that is).  This allows for a discourse and debate which is healthy.  However, when you are writting something like the "official history" or producing the national war musuem, all of which are initiatives undertaken by the state, things get very touchy.

Tim Cook's Clio's Warriors is a good read and addresses these issues in a much better way than I can offer here.

I did not think  you would have an answer.  I do appreciate the nice story, about the vet with his grandkids that would bring an upbeat, and positive slant to the argument.

How about I do the same.

Had you read this thread, you would have seen some very passionate posts from a fella by the name of Art Johnson.  He is a plank owner of this site actually (one of the original members from way back in the day when Mike B had an Apple Seed before the Mac )

He was a good ole fella.  A 48th legend if you will.  (Yep, a member of my regiment) He went overseas as a member of The RCR (Hup Hup and Pro Patria to Mike O’ and that Motorman/slash whatever his name is this week ).  Arty Shell blew half his body away, so when he walked with his Grand Kiddies or us Highlanders, there was bit of a limp.

Being a Korean Vet he was peeved. 

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30591/post-218138.html#msg218138


Heck, he admitted that he was man and one of the boys.  But, for him to walk in the museum, and see a statistic put up on a plaque about how many pee pees were hurt, over the amount of troops that left behind half of their bodies overseas, just did not sit well with him.  It did not sit well with me.  I was a pit bull about it, and I had the honour of receiving this post from Art:

Hey Tess, flug them all. You and I have been there we know what BATTLE is all about. We don't have to take a back seat to anyone. Stay the course mate and we will stomp all over these posers and wannabes.

Aye Dileas

Pro Patrtia

Cheers

Art J

I am not making this a feel good post, but you pulled out the cute tear jerker story.  You see, every post I finish off it ends as this;

dileas

tess.

Wanna know why?  Because I honour Art Johsnon.  I honour My Regiment.  It is the way we 48th end our missives.

You see, that is how we continue tradition.  Not in your nice feely good, political way.  That is the way we can tech our future about what it is to be Canadian.  Not some politically motivated Scholastic interpretation, that you embrace.  So Tim Cook's Clio's Warriors will be part of my Library very soon, I advise Art Johnsons posts will part of yours.

Aye Dileas

tess

 

[ltmaverick25]

I dont think I subscribe to this "feel good" embrace that you are talking about.  As I mentioned before in this thread, I find myself always siding with the veterans on these issues.  I think it is safe to say you are preaching to the choir on this.  Perhaps the only thing we may really differ on is the idea of telling a story rather then letting the artifacts stand on their own.  I dont think the artifacts by themselves could ever do justice to the veterans.  What does the artifact mean to people that dont understand what they are?  If you dont tell the story, im my opinion the artifact becomes moot.  But either way, an artifact by itself, or an artifact with a narrative attached to it, can never do these veterans justice.

The other thing I think people should keep in mind is that the historians who work at the war musueam, or the ones that have in recent history, are the veterans and soldiers biggest fans and champions.

Were talking about guys like Jack Granatstein, Roger Sarty, Tim Cook, and many others.  They really really do have the veterans back on these issues.  There are plenty of historians out there that would not see things the way Granatstein, Sarty and Cook do.  In fact there are too many, but you wont find them at the war museam.

 

[mariomike]

They were never designed to win wars all by themselves. 

The lesson learned is that what happened to the cities of Germany and Japan were best to be avoided.
Wars are now fought, whenever possible, in remote places.

 

[Journeyman]

The lesson learned is that what happened to the cities of Germany and Japan were best to be avoided.
Wars are now fought, whenever possible, in remote places.

OK, I've got to throw a massive WTF in here.

We military folks have recently gone to Belet Huen, Kosovo Polje, Shah Wal-e-Kot, etc, etc.... because of angst over Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki?

The political leadership that decides where, and against whom, we fight is so wracked with guilt, they've collectively said, "no more Germanies or Japans...or any other country with stained-glass and china cupboards -- from now on, we're just going to trash remote third-world countries; our only policy decision is the coin-toss for jungle or desert" ??

I'm guessing we went to different schools.

 

[Scott]

mariomike, have you not already been warned about the manner in which you post? Methinks you've been told to avoid posting as the final authority on subjects of which you really are not. Please follow that direction.

Scott
Army.ca Staff

 

[mariomike]

I hope this helps. Have a great day.

"The great aerial bombardments of the Second World War were not forgotten by the postwar generation. Today, wars only crop up in remote places where both sides know there is no threat of annihilation from the skies. That, in a nutshell, is the lesson Bomber Command taught the world."
Source: "Battlefields in the air: Canadians in Bomber Command." by Dan McCaffery 1995.

"The city area raids have left their mark on the German people as well as on their cities. Far more than any other military action that preceded the actual occupation of Germany itself, these attacks left the German people with a solid lesson in the disadvantages of war. It was a terrible lesson; conceivably that lesson, both in Germany and abroad, could be the most lasting single effect of the air war.
This is fully supported by the example of the devastated cities of Japan and their unhappy and hungry surviving inhabitants."
United States Strategic Bombing Survey

 

[ltmaverick25]

Hes just making interpretations now.  Its pretty hard to be declared wrong on an interpretation.

However, I do disagree with that interpretation.

The massive air war in the Gulf and the Iraq war that focused on Bagdad demonstrate that allies are not afraid to go near large cities if it makes military sence to do so.  Mogadishu is another example.  But we also arent dealing with the same carpet bombing tactics of the Second World War. 

 

[George Wallace]

"The great aerial bombardments of the Second World War were not forgotten by the postwar generation. Today, wars only crop up in remote places where both sides know there is no threat of annihilation from the skies. That, in a nutshell, is the lesson Bomber Command taught the world."
Source: "Battlefields in the air: Canadians in Bomber Command." by Dan McCaffery 1995.

"The city area raids have left their mark on the German people as well as on their cities. Far more than any other military action that preceded the actual occupation of Germany itself, these attacks left the German people with a solid lesson in the disadvantages of war. It was a terrible lesson; conceivably that lesson, both in Germany and abroad, could be the most lasting single effect of the air war.
This is fully supported by the example of the devastated cities of Japan and their unhappy and hungry surviving inhabitants."
United States Strategic Bombing Survey

I wonder if Dan McCaffery forgot all about Hanoi, and numerous other North Vietnamese cities.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I wonder if Dan McCaffery forgot all about Hanoi, and numerous other North Vietnamese cities.

Perhaps his definition of "remote places" hinges on a requirement for the local language not being of European origin.

 

[mariomike]

I wonder if Dan McCaffery forgot all about Hanoi, and numerous other North Vietnamese cities.

The bombing of Vietnam was restricted.
The bombing Germany and Japan was unrestricted. As soon as the a-bombs were ready, they used them.

 

[George Wallace]

The bombing of Vietnam was restricted.

I'm not quite sure how "restricted" the "CARPET Bombing" of North Vietnamese cities was.  Could you take some time to clarify this?

 

[ltmaverick25]

It was resticted in that Lyndon Johnson insisted on reviewing every bombing target before a bombing mission was carried out.  His staff would rate each potential target in terms of military value and potential for civilian or collateral damage.  Because of this policy several targets were removed from the bombing list.

The policy was not uniformly implemented from the start of the war until the end though.  Domestic politics played a significant role in the type of bombing that was available to the military.  From that point of view it is very safe to say that compared to bombing carried out in the Second World War, the Vietnam bombings were indeed restricted.

But I would argue that this is more a factor of revolutionairy media technology then as a result of Germany/Japan.

 

[Journeyman]

OK, Reader's Digest response:
I'd suggest having a look at Gen. Rupert Smith's Utility of Force in the Modern World. War isn't about "remoteness," or "people sufficiently different from us, so they're safe to attack" -- as always, it's about power, perceptions of threat to national/tribal interest, and calculations of perceived losses and gains by acting with force.
Have a read, then get back to us.

-------------------------
Long-winded response:

"The great aerial bombardments of the Second World War were not forgotten by the postwar generation. Today, wars only crop up in remote places where both sides know there is no threat of annihilation from the skies. That, in a nutshell, is the lesson Bomber Command taught the world."
Source: "Battlefields in the air: Canadians in Bomber Command." by Dan McCaffery

You choose a quote which states clearly that "both sides know there is no threat of annihilation from the skies." In your initial 'scenario' (Dresden/Hiroshima), was there any threat of Washington or Ottawa being of annihilated from the skies? No; so the initial premise is wrong.

Overlooking the flawed premise, was the west (US in particular) capable of of annihilating Belet Huen, Kosovo Polje, Shah Wal-i-Kot? Yes. Very much so. Even in Vietnam, could the US have annihilated very developed cities, such as Hanoi and Haiphong (arguably equivalent to Dresden or Nagasaki)? Yes, but as noted, they chose restraint for international political reasons. This does nothing to diminish the capability of one side facing "annihilation from the sky." With North Vietnam (Somalia, Kosovo, Afghanistan) having no capability for striking back in an equivalent manner, I suggest that McCaffery is wrong, which therefore does nothing to further your argument.

"The city area raids have left their mark on the German people as well as on their cities. Far more than any other military action that preceded the actual occupation of Germany itself, these attacks left the German people with a solid lesson in the disadvantages of war. It was a terrible lesson; conceivably that lesson, both in Germany and abroad, could be the most lasting single effect of the air war."
United States Strategic Bombing Survey

Two points here.
One, the USSBS states that the Germans learned "the disadvantages of war," not "the disadvantages of war...except in banana republics."

Secondly, and this is more towards your choice of sources. The US Strategic Bombing Survey was conducted between 1944 and 1947. Give me a break; how could a document over 60 years freakin' old tell us what countries are thinking today about the utility of force in the current geo-strategic environment.

Neither of your quotes come close to backing your statement that wars are now fought in remote places because of what happened to German/Japanese cities. Nor have you made a compelling argument about both sides fearing death from the skies.


In today's world, "remoteness," whether physically [distance], or culturally [Christians, Muslims, Orthodox Serbs all fought in former-Yugo], isn't even scarcely a planning factor.


ps - if you'd argue the case about developed societies not going to war against one another because of intertwined global economies (another popular theory), you may have more credibility.

 

[George Wallace]

And the comparison of munitions and the destructive power of those munitions carried by B-52's compared to what was carried in Lancaster, Liberator, Halifax and other bombers of the Second World War? 

I really don't like the "Revisionist History" that some are putting forward.  The 'unknowing' writing on things that they have no comprehension of is criminal in the damage they are doing to history.  Denial of the Holocaust has already taken place in some quarters.  Now we see it in other parts of our history too.

 

[geo]

Hmmm...
IIRC, the Germans were the 1st to bomb cities - using Zeppelins - bombing London during WW1
Then the Germans bombed cities during the Spanish civil war... followed by bombing of cities of Poland, England, Russia..... well, you get the general idea.

Once total war was declared, total war was declared and nothing much was safe.  If your factories were build in residential neighborhoods - then the neighborhoods were fair game...

WRT the A bombing of Japan.... the alternative was a traditional invasion of the home islands... and considering the hundreds of thousands of people who would have died in such a fight..... dropping the bombs was a reasonnable decision.

 

[mariomike]

I really don't like the "Revisionist History" that some are putting forward.  The 'unknowing' writing on things that they have no comprehension of is criminal in the damage they are doing to history.  Denial of the Holocaust has already taken place in some quarters.  Now we see it in other parts of our history too.

I can see where this is going. If that's the way you feel, please ban me. I won't mind a bit.
Good night.

 

[ltmaverick25]

I dont understand, why would you want to be banned based on George's opinion on revisionist history?

 

[McG]

Hmmm...
IIRC, the Germans were the 1st to bomb cities - using Zeppelins - bombing London during WW1

Bombardment of cities occurred long before people ever learned to fly.  The Germans don't get the credit for this.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I can see where this is going. If that's the way you feel, please ban me. I won't mind a bit.
Good night.

If that's the way you feel, just stop posting.  I won't mind a bit, and the thread can return to talking about the Canadian War Museum.

On the other hand, please feel free to defend your views and meet counter arguments with reasoned responses.

 

[mariomike]

Thank you, Mr O'Leary. I had an emotional reaction.
I could have done a better job expressing my opinions on the subject.
My apologies to Mr. Wallace and the other members.