War Museum Controversy and Follow-up Thread [merged]

[KevinB]

PBI good point.

Odd that Paul Springer who is also First Nations and was awarded a Medal of Bravey and CDS commendation (two different events - the Shark rescue and the Local convoy 'escort' who was shooting at delivery trucks drivers over a fee dispute.) was not portrayed or acknowledged.  It's almost like a consipracy...

 

[jmacleod]

I forwarded a formal compliant to the Director Canadian War Museum (copied to War Amps
Canada and Journalist Peter Worthington) pointing out that the "portraits" of former Canadian
soldier Kyle Brown and Clayton Matchee should not be displayed in the Museum. I have often
felt that Brown was a victim of Canadian military justice, and should not have been charged
much less convicted, and that Matchee in fact was not tried for the offences allegedly committed
by him in Somalia. It is also evident, in my opinion that there is a degree of blatant racism in
these "portraits", considering both Brown and Matchee are aboriginals, like very many who have
served in the Canadian Forces with distinction for many decades. I have also pointed out that the
Canadian War Museum should not be connected under any circumstance to it's current mentor,
whose agenda is not focused on, nor in sympathy with the Canadian military. As I have stated in any earlier post, my associates and friends were very apprehensive when we read an extract of the
business and development plan for the new Canadian War Museum, having seen first hand their
changes in the Halifax Citadel Military Museum N.S., which I will define in a later post. MacLeod

 

[Michael Dorosh]

It would appear the painting in question was purchased without the consent of the board...Worthington discusses it today.  I didn't see the painting in my brief tour of the museum - but the rest of the museum failed to impress me, too.  Nor the opening ceremonies, which were clearly not aimed at the veterans (apparently many of them got up and left after only a few minutes of sitting in the hot sun listening to modern French Canadian pop music....gee, why would an 80 year old man not want to endure that?)

 

[Brad Sallows]

One role of a museum is to provide material for visitors to interpret.  The museum staff presumably decide what material is to be made available for interpretation.

I prefer museums which simply amass and display masses of artifacts, in a semblance of order (eg. by period and campaign), with small cards asserting the important characteristics and lineage (if known) of each item on display.

It is a good idea to have a war art section.  It would also be good to have sections filled with small arms, uniforms, vehicles and equipment, campaign maps and descriptions, etc.

 

[Infanteer]

I prefer museums which simply amass and display masses of artifacts, in a semblance of order (eg. by period and campaign), with small cards asserting the important characteristics and lineage (if known) of each item on display.

+1 to that.

A museum should attempt to convey the events and circumstances of the story it is trying to tell - what would do that better, a guy holding a black and white cube with some Hercs flying around him or an actual Maxim machine gun that guys had to lug across no-mans land.

 

[jmacleod]

My company provided a Business Plan for the Atlantic Canada Aviation Museum, Halifax NS, which was
their basis for funds from Federal sources to expand their excellent, but modest facility. I learned a
lot about modern museums while working on the EH101 Merlin project, visited virtually all the major
military museums in England; RN HMS Yeoville, RAF Hendon, RAF Duxford, Brigade of Guards London
Imperial War Museum East London, and the most impressive, the Museum of the Moving Image
London (the motion picture Museum). British Museums are designed to attract people, their
theme being, "total participation", so that in Duxford and Yeoville, you can fly an F1 "Tornado"
in simulation, or in Duxford, an SE-5 World War 1 fighter, and chase the "Red Baron" - participation
in the Museum of the Moving Image is very impressive - one can watch the recreation of a famous
film being photographed on a re created sound stage of the 1940's era, for instance. In the Imperial
War Museum, trenches have been recreated, and there is always a highly specialized display - last
time we were there, the feature was "The Victoria Cross" and outstanding journey into the award
history of the famous decoration. I have not been in the new Canadian War Museum, but what I have
seen, frankly did not impress me. The guidestaff at Hendon and Duxford in particular are very
knowledgeable - and the aircraft collections world famous. The Canadian Warplane Heritage Foundation
(CWHF) Mount Hope ON, is moving in the British direction, and Town Class Corvette HMCS Sackville
is a living ship, recreated to be exactly the way she looked in 1944-45. Our Museums, which feature
real Canadian history, must be marketed to Canadians, to ensure that our historic past is not
overlooked or forgotten. MacLeod

 

[FastEddy]

One role of a museum is to provide material for visitors to interpret.   The museum staff presumably decide what material is to be made available for interpretation.

I prefer museums which simply amass and display masses of artifacts, in a semblance of order (eg. by period and campaign), with small cards asserting the important characteristics and lineage (if known) of each item on display.

It is a good idea to have a war art section.   It would also be good to have sections filled with small arms, uniforms, vehicles and equipment, campaign maps and descriptions, etc.

Absolutely, thats what I always thought a War Museum was. At least the only one I have ever seen was, The London Imperial War Museum.

Ottawa, Social conscience and truth, now there's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Gager]

British Museums are designed to attract people, their theme being, "total participation", so that in Duxford and Yeoville, you can fly an F1 "Tornado" n simulation, or in Duxford, an SE-5 World War 1 fighter, and chase the "Red Baron" - participation
in the Museum of the Moving Image is very impressive - one can watch the recreation of a famous
film being photographed on a re created sound stage of the 1940's era, for instance. In the Imperial
War Museum, trenches have been recreated, and there is always a highly specialized display - last
time we were there, the feature was "The Victoria Cross" and outstanding journey into the award
history of the famous decoration.

Out of curiousity - how big / long was the trench in the museum? In the CWM the trench 'section' is an S Shape, in a 'square' space probably no bigger than 15 x 20 ft

 

[jmacleod]

The sandbagged trench, with a painted dawn background, was in a single room and was about
20 to 25 ' I would think. A re-created dug-out was in the next dispaly to the right of the trench.
When the late GC Robert "Bob" Braham DSO,DFC etc., was Curator of the Citadel Military Museum
Halifax NS he created a similar trench and dugout. He also installed a periscope from a captured
German U-Boat,in operational condition, and was the catalyst in making the facility very attractive
to visitors. I remember the first time I saw the trench recreation in Halifax; it had used British bully
beef tins on the floor, and over in a quiet corner, a big rat sat contemplaying his next meal I
would think. The rat, like the entire display was very realistic; even the Ross rifles were there,
this being a Canadian Corps trench. GC Braham RAF, was considered the outstanding RAF night
fighter pilot of WWII - well known to many RCAF personnel of the period. He came to Halifax
and left as his legacy a remarkable well designed museum, full of historical artifacts and documents
going back to the Seven Years War - BGen Wolfe's Cape was on display for some years. MacLeod

 

[winchable]

The sandbagged trench, with a painted dawn background, was in a single room and was about
20 to 25 ' I would think. A re-created dug-out was in the next dispaly to the right of the trench

Would that be the trench at the IWM London jmacleod?
I was impressed with that too, the atmosphere was heavy and the air was thick and stale, the periscope and the noises of the guns rattling really added to the realism.
They also had a recreation of what it was like to be in the blitz, not sure if you tried that, that was an eye opener..right down to the smells of the streets after.

 

[jmacleod]

Reply to Che; yes the first trench I mentioned was in the IWM, which I have visited many times
and learned a lot about military and related Museums in the UK. The other trench, as indicated
was in the Halifax Fortress Military Museum (the Citadel Hill fortress). My associates and I are aware
of a plan to establish the "Museum of the Regiments" in Edmonton AB, which we suggested
should include an entire major section, to highlight the Airborne Forces. Not sure what the
current status of the "Museum of the Regiments" is, but I know it was discussed in DND and
Heritage Canada (when Copps was Minister). The British Museums deal in total participation
as you noticed in the London Blitz exhibit - very realistic, especially as one of the London firemen
was wearing a Canada shoulder patch - a lot of Canadians volunteered as fireman to serve in the
UK. I recommend a tour of RAF Duxford and RAF Hendon, plus the RN Fleet Air Arm Museum
at HMS Yeovilton, which has a very highly detailed sector commemorating the late Lt(P) Robert
Hampton Grey,VC, including details of his brothers, one of whom was an RCAF pilot. The preservation
of our military history must be a priority in the Federal government. MacLeod

 

[Michael Dorosh]

There is a similar trench, with dugout, periscope, and dead German lying in No Man's Land, at the PPCLI Museum in Calgary.  No rats, but there are flies on the officers' bread....

 

[jmacleod]

In Ottawa, they use real flies - supply appears to be unlimited. MacLeod

 

[jmacleod]

A recent letter to the Editor advocated that the Canadian War Museum be renamed "The Canadian
Peace Museum" - The new War Museum as envisaged decades ago by the Director and veteran's
organizations was to be a much larger facility than the then Ottawa building, designed to house all
the artifacts, weapons, uniforms and art works stored througout Canada. It was to a truly focused
part of our Canadian veteran's legacy - no thought of association with another Federal museum was
contemplated, expect for those with existing long term links, like the National Aeronautical
Collection. Somehow, a decision was made to make the War Museum an ancilliary of the Canadian
Museum of Civilization, which is mandated to provide a totally different concept of Canada, and in
particular Canada's wars, it's veterans, honors and awards, battles and Canada's emergence as the
third largest allied contributor to victory in World War II. Bureaucrats in the War Museum are providing
an anti-war message, which commences with the preamble on their web site. I have not visited
the new War Museum, but I know changes must be made, considering the remarks by Journalist
Peter Worthington and Mr. Clifford Chadderton and many others. The key to change is in the
board of Trustees and the bureaucrats employed - there must be control by veteran's and former
plus serving military personnel - guides must be former members of the military. Museums are used
to record real history, not an "interpretation" of history by person's with no real knowledge of this
country's vaunted fighting abilities, and the very high quality of those who served. The military
Museum resources in the United States provide a clear and definative message - honor for their
military history, in some of the finest facilities in the world, created with great care and affection.
MacLeod

 

[Edward Campbell]

History is always, without fail, interpreted.  Peter Wothington and Cliff Chadderton have their individual interpretations as does war artist Gertrude Kearns, and I am certain that her interpretations are different from those of, say, war artist Alex Colville.  (The plural matters, I think, because I am fairly certain that Ms. Kearns would interpret different situations in different ways in different time periods.)

My interpretation of events â “ unification for example â “ which took place in the '60s is different, today, 40+ years on, than it was in those same '60s or in the '70s, '80s and '90s for that matter.

My interpretation of World War I differs, I suppose, from, say, Jack Granatsein's or, for all that it matters, from those of any historian â “ although I am close to Niall Ferguson's view â “ in The Pity of War, London, 1998.  Am I (and Ferguson) right?  Obviously I think I am but I am not so conceited (not quite, anyway) as to expect that others agree.

All interpretations, including those of jmacleod, pbi, and Michael Dorosh, etc, are 'right' in the eyes of those who make them.  One of the key functions of any museum is to provide a mechanism through which everyone may make their own interpretations based, hopefully, on an objective presentation of the available evidence and that, presenting the available evidence, with interpretations â “ because it is people doing the presenting, not machines, is, I argue, the work, indeed the duty of scholars, some of whom might, also, be soldiers.  In the end scholarship must 'win' because museums are not memorials â “ too many people make the serious mistake of confusing the two.  We have ways and means to honour and remember those who fought 'our' wars; we need ways to learn about how wars affect us and how they helped shape our country and our society.  Museums are one of the tools in the latter quest.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

History is always, without fail, interpreted.  Peter Wothington and Cliff Chadderton have their individual interpretations as does war artist Gertrude Kearns, and I am certain that her interpretations are different from those of, say, war artist Alex Colville.  (The plural matters, I think, because I am fairly certain that Ms. Kearns would interpret different situations in different ways in different time periods.)

My interpretation of events â “ unification for example â “ which took place in the '60s is different, today, 40+ years on, than it was in those same '60s or in the '70s, '80s and '90s for that matter.

My interpretation of World War I differs, I suppose, from, say, Jack Granatsein's or, for all that it matters, from those of any historian â “ although I am close to Niall Ferguson's view â “ in The Pity of War, London, 1998.  Am I (and Ferguson) right?  Obviously I think I am but I am not so conceited (not quite, anyway) as to expect that others agree.

All interpretations, including those of jmacleod, pbi, and Michael Dorosh, etc, are 'right' in the eyes of those who make them.  One of the key functions of any museum is to provide a mechanism through which everyone may make their own interpretations based, hopefully, on an objective presentation of the available evidence and that, presenting the available evidence, with interpretations â “ because it is people doing the presenting, not machines, is, I argue, the work, indeed the duty of scholars, some of whom might, also, be soldiers.  In the end scholarship must 'win' because museums are not memorials â “ too many people make the serious mistake of confusing the two.  We have ways and means to honour and remember those who fought 'our' wars; we need ways to learn about how wars affect us and how they helped shape our country and our society.  Museums are one of the tools in the latter quest.

I thought it bizarre that jmacleod would criticize the CWM for having an "anti-war" outlook - I think any museum, acting with any kind of accuracy or fidelity to what really happened in a war, would be an "anti-war" establishment, in the same way that any decent motion picture purporting to be an honest look at warfare would have to be - by necessity - "anti-war."  I also suspect he didn't intend to use that description in the way it came out.

I think I understand the point; my understanding is that he is saying US military museums show the professional side - details of uniform, equipment etc. and tales of heroic acts.  Tales of misery - or criminal acts - are quietly put aside in order to do honour to the subject matter.  I'm not sure I disagree with that stance.  Certainly I am more interested in seeing a depiction of the crossing of the Albert Canal in our regimental museum than I would be of, say, some collection of poorly run exercises by postwar colonels.  Museums, in the view of many here, should inspire also - not just capture what has happened, but remind us that it could happen again.

 

[jmacleod]

Let me illustrate was is bizarre in a military museum. The Halifax Fortress Military Museum Halifax NS
featured a diaorama three years ago, showing in great detail with model soldiers, an attack upon
the fortress circa 1867, by United States Federal soldiers. When I saw this, the director of their
museum guides was describing the "battle" to a group of visitors - when I got the opportunity
I pointed out that the US Army did not ever attack the fortress, nor would they. She was unaware
of the uniforms and battle ensigns displayed by the troops, charging up Citadel Hill - the uniforms
were of the Union Army Irish Brigade, recruited in New York, Boston and Philadelphia, which lost
over 8,000 dead in the Civil War, mostly Irish immigrants. Over 10,000 Nova Scotians served in the
Civil War, most in the Union Army; many served in the Irish Brigade. The carefully crafted diaorama
was created, in my opinion, to focus on the Finian Raids which came much later in central Canada.
How can a bureaucrat justify the deciption of a battle which never was, and more importantly
describe the non-existant battle to American visitors-tourists, many of whom are very knowledgeable
about the "War Between The States". I wrote to Heritage Minister Copps about this who took the
Museum Curator (who should have known better) to task. Mark my words, the Canadian War Museum
will suffer areas of credibility as their "interpretation" of Canadian history is modified, or re-created to
accomplish a certain political perspective, the Axworthy view of Canada's "world". MacLeod

 

[FastEddy]

I went to the CWM today, and saw this infamous painting (and tess's Iltis). It is actually quite graphic and disturbing and is located in a semi-prominent location, its not right out there in your face, but its not hard to miss.

My previous statements in regards to this still stand, but other then that, an excellent museum all around. I was very impressed.

Compared to what?.

 

[FastEddy]

The old one.

Good one, not that I expected any less

 

[jmacleod]

An observation based on experience. Under the direction of the Canadian Museum of Civilzation
the Canadian War Museum over the years ahead will be converted into an anti-military resource,
- time is on the side of the bureaucrats, as Canadian veterans pass on. The government which
approved funding for both facilities, including their business plans, and terms of reference has
not been partial to the Canadian military establishment, veterans, veterans organizations or the
roles in the international sector of the Canadian Forces. Gradually, the anti-military message will
become more prominent, at the same time, funding for the War Museum will gradually be
reduced, as it was for the former Ottawa facility, and has been for military museums across
Canada, which in many cases are supported with generous donations from the private sector.
Only a significant change in the National Government will change the plan to denigrate this
country's commendable record in all the wars and peacekeeping/peace enforecment operations.
MacLeod