War Museum Bomber Command Exhibit Change

[Michael OLeary]

I can admit that I can understand the logic being applied by the diverse groups surrounding the Bomber Command controversy, but there are some aspects that make me wonder.

I have seen various explanations within which the courage of the Wehrmacht was readily separated from the ideology of the Nazi party when discussing respected battlefield opponents (admittedly no SS unit was ever offered such editorial grace).  Or the courage of the U-Boat crews even while participating in unrestricted submarine warfare that was considered a despicable way to wage war.

In contrast, there seems to be an incapability to do the same when discussing Allied operations.  Why can’t we separately describe the courage and sacrifice of the bomber crews, while simultaneous critically examining the political and strategic decisions that placed them in harms way?

Is that any different than some of the discussion about political decision-making about the CF today – we certainly don’t see our collective opinions as being synchronous with our political direction at all times.  But we do obey it and do not think less of ourselves for having done so.

 

[time expired]

Micheal O`L.
          The strategy in WW2 Europe was dictated by the actions of one man
Adolf Hitler, a man voted into power by a large majority of the German
population in 1933,his approval rating remained high as long as he was
winning, despite his methods.The British and their allies had but one strategy,
that was to defeat Germany by whatever means that were available.I suspect
that in 1941 if asked the British population and even more so the populations
of the occupied countries would not have cared if the entire German Herrnvolk,
man , woman and child were wiped out.It is in this atmosphere that the
tactics of the Bomber campaign were formulated and for any intellectual to pass
judgement from the safety and comfort of the ivory towers of the early 21 Cent.
is both arrogant and redundant.
                                      Regards

 

[klambie]

I suspect
that in 1941 if asked the British population and even more so the populations
of the occupied countries would not have cared if the entire German Herrnvolk,
man , woman and child were wiped out.It is in this atmosphere that the
tactics of the Bomber campaign were formulated and for any intellectual to pass
judgement from the safety and comfort of the ivory towers of the early 21 Cent.
is both arrogant and redundant.
                                      Regards

You might be surprised.  In partial response (and useful since we are talking about our War Museum after all), from Dean Oliver's 2 May Senate testimony:

"Even during the war, as most serious accounts note, there was considerable unease about the strategic bombing effort. In Canada, a public opinion poll in January 1943 asked people if they supported ``bombing Germany's civilian population.'' Not surprisingly, 57 per cent of respondents approved, but 38 per cent disapproved. In other words, at the height of the war, nearly two in five Canadians opposed bombing enemy civilians."

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

....yea, from the unbombed safety of their homes.

How little things have changed.....................................

 

[Michael OLeary]

Micheal O`L.
          The strategy in WW2 Europe was dictated by the actions of one man
Adolf Hitler, a man voted into power by a large majority of the German
population in 1933,his approval rating remained high as long as he was
winning, despite his methods.The British and their allies had but one strategy,
that was to defeat Germany by whatever means that were available.I suspect
that in 1941 if asked the British population and even more so the populations
of the occupied countries would not have cared if the entire German Herrnvolk,
man , woman and child were wiped out.It is in this atmosphere that the
tactics of the Bomber campaign were formulated and for any intellectual to pass
judgement from the safety and comfort of the ivory towers of the early 21 Cent.
is both arrogant and redundant.
                                      Regards

Thank you, you've encapsulated my point by missing it entirely.

 

[klambie]

....yea, from the unbombed safety of their homes.

How little things have changed.....................................

Right.  With a million other peoples kids over there doing who knows what with no impact on their comfy lives.

 

[time expired]

Michael O`L.
                I understood your point very well,that we should recognise
the bravery of our aircrews and separate them from the evil b§$%stards
that formulated these bombing policies.This sounds fair on the face of it,
however by calling the bombing campaign a "war crime"one is faced with the
question,where did the war criminals start?,was the Master bomber a war
criminal or the squadron leader,or the wing commander?,or was it just
Air Marshall Harris and Winston Churchill?.This is what the revisionists
are saying and the surviving aircrew veterans refuse to accept this point,
and I believe rightly so.As I tried to point out in my earlier posts these
policies were formulated in a country that was facing defeat in 41-42
and was desperately seeking a way of striking back and cannot be
judged in retrospect, and certainly these revisionist judgements have no
place in a war museum.
Klambie,based on what the Canadian public know about the present war
being fought in Afghanistan,in this age of instant news coverage,I think
that Canadian public opinion in Jan.43 can be safely discounted as
uninformed and largely irrelevant.
                                      Regards

 

[Michael OLeary]

.... however by calling the bombing campaign a "war crime"one is faced with the
question,where did the war criminals start?

What is your source for this?  Please show me the official Canadian source that openly labeled the bomber crews war criminals , or the bombing campaign as a war crime, using that specific term, not a third party's extrapolation. 

 

[time expired]

Micheal O`L.
                You are correct, no official said war crimes were committed
they said instead that the bombing was controversial,what the hell
does that mean?,they didn't use big enough bombs?,no I think we
who understand how the left operate know exactly what is being inferred
and if you don't then I am very sorry.
                                        Regards

 

[Michael OLeary]

Micheal O`L.
                You are correct, no official said war crimes were committed
they said instead that the bombing was controversial,what the hell
does that mean?,they didn't use big enough bombs?,no I think we
who understand how the left operate know exactly what is being inferred
and if you don't then I am very sorry.
                                        Regards

No need to apologize.  You appear to be experiencing an emotional reaction to an interpretation that you have chosen to believe is explicitly, and without conditions, against what you accept as absolute truths.  I have asked for factual supporting evidence, which you admit does not seem to exist.

That there is a controversy is well demonstrated by the existence of this discussion here, on similar forums and in the media.  The controversy is one of interpretation and is highlighted by the unwillingness of many parties to surrender their own views to that of the opposing proponents, with neither side seeking compromise.  Questioning an interpretation of the expressed descriptions is NOT the same as branding anyone war criminals. 

Now, please do not be so arrogant to presume that my asking for evidence of your so strongly stated opinions reflects an inability of mine to "know exactly what is being inferred".  Why should I blindly follow one opinion or the other.  Why must I be solely on one side of the issue or the other?  Is asking for facts now to be considered denigrating the valour of the bomber crews too?  And you say "the left" is writing revisionist history.

 

[rlh]

Please show me the official Canadian source that openly labeled the bomber crews war criminals , or the bombing campaign as a war crime, using that specific term, not a third party's extrapolation.

The front page headline of the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday 28 August 2007 was "After a Long Fight, the Canadian War Musuem Backs Down and Says it Will Change Exhibit Veterans Say Portrays Them as War Criminals:  A Victory for Veterans."

Even though this is not an official source, every scriber of the paper read about Bomber Command being equated with war criminals first thing last Tuesday morning.  This label has now entered their internalization of the story.  How much more "official" does one need to get?

 

[dapaterson]

Let's re-iterate:  The only high profile who used the war criminals label is Cliff Chadderton.  He does come across as a rather tragic figure in all this, though, as it seems he's incapable (or possibly unwilling) to discuss anything in depth - his summation seems to be something along the lines that it's unfair to the memory of soldiers to debate and analyze their actions in retrospect.

I must respectfully disagree.

 

[Michael OLeary]

The front page headline of the Ottawa Citizen on Tuesday 28 August 2007 was "After a Long Fight, the Canadian War Musuem Backs Down and Says it Will Change Exhibit Veterans Say Portrays Them as War Criminals:  A Victory for Veterans."

Even though this is not an official source, every scriber of the paper read about Bomber Command being equated with war criminals first thing last Tuesday morning.  This label has now entered their internalization of the story.  How much more "official" does one need to get?

Let's re-iterate:  The only high profile who used the war criminals label is Cliff Chadderton.  He does come across as a rather tragic figure in all this, though, as it seems he's incapable (or possibly unwilling) to discuss anything in depth - his summation seems to be something along the lines that it's unfair to the memory of soldiers to debate and analyze their actions in retrospect.

I must respectfully disagree.

Chadderton (et al?) + the media = "their internalization"- I wouldn't call that official in any respect.

 

[rlh]

Chadderton (et al?) + the media = "their internalization"- I wouldn't call that official in any respect.

I wasn't trying to say that these "sources" are official.  My point is that official or unofficial -- to the general public reading a headline, it doesn't really matter.  Rightly or wrongly, the term "war criminal" has been injected into the popular discussion.  Most people highly respect Chadderton because he is so visible and because he is a veteran (hey, and he does the War Amp commercials too).  And most people do not understand now the media does poor, biased, and unbalanced research.  Their training is not to do thorough and proper research; their training to get tell a great story, sell papers, and meet deadlines.

And most people don't understand the importance or meaning of an "official" source.  Does an "official" source really have any meaning to most people?  Officially, the 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wars are to be referred to as the First World War and the Second World War in Canada.  Nevertheless, most Canadians still use the American terminology World War I and World War II (do Canadians even know that there is an officially government sanctioned way to refer to these conflicts?)

 

[time expired]

Micheal O`L
              RE your comment on my emotional response to this report,let
me explain the basis for my emotionalism.I was born in the City of
Coventry a city you may or may not have heard of.In Nov. 1940 Adolf
Hitler announced,to the cheers of thousands,that he had coined a new
word"to coventrate",that was to destroy a city with bombs and fire.As was
often the case with Herr Hitler he exaggerated a little however his Luftwaffe
had managed to destroy the medieval center of our city including our
the 12Th century cathedral.I lost relatives and neighbours in these raids and
I feel that justifies my display of emotion.Later in the war I lived in the
east of England in an area surrounded by RAF and USAAF bomber bases
I watched them take off and tried to guess where they were headed and
I watched them return,some on fire,some with one or two engines stopped,
although no one told me I came to realise that there were dead on board
and others that did not return.At night I lay in bed and listened to the
RAF bombers leaving and once again wondering where they were going,
also if they were suffering the same way the the Americans appeared
to be.These men were my hero's,but it was only after the war that I came to
realise how heroic their sacrifice was,their chances of surviving a full tour
of operations was around 50% and many volunteered for second tours,by the
way the odds for a German getting hit by an allied bomb were somewhat
better .5%,that is correct,point five%.So as you can imagine when some
one infers that these men were doing something dishonourable or even
criminal,my blood begins to boil.
            Comparisons with the Wehrmacht are fatuous in the extreme,one
may admire their soldierly qualities or their tenacity,I do so myself, but
one must remember they were fighting in lands they had brutally
conquered and were trying to hold onto in the name of an evil and
criminal regime.
            The Germans are very tired of hearing about the Holocaust and
the various war crimes that they reputed to have committed and are beginning
to see themselves as victims of the world war. In this they are helped by
authors such as Jörg Friedrich who wrote a well researched book about
the allied bombing campaign titled "Der Brand"in which he claims the bombing
campaign was a war crime.Whenever the subject is raised in the German
media,usually anniversary of the Dresden raid, he is trotted out for his
say, and invariable uses quotes from like thinking revisionists from
the former allied countries as verification of the truth of his claims.While
I am not in favour of continually bashing the German over the head about
WW2 ,I do feel that calling into question our tactics for beating them is
revisionist claptrap at its very worst and should not be allowed to
influence our historical view of the Second World War.
                                Regards

 

[Michael OLeary]

....I do feel that calling into question our tactics for beating them is
revisionist claptrap at its very worst and should not be allowed to
influence our historical view of the Second World War.
                                Regards

Asking for supporting facts is not the same as "calling into question" the tactics used.  Tactics and strategic direction are also two very different aspects of a conflict.  Shouting down those who seek clearer understanding, rather than simply bowing to "our historical view", may not be revisionist by definition, but it is certainly a form of censorship. 

By the way, I have heard of Coventry.  My condolences for your family's losses in those raids.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I'm used to reading and hearing people dance around the point they're trying to make, or to lead others in a certain direction without stating the point indelicately.  (And I'm often guilty of the same.)  Chadderton was simply straightforward and indelicate, as have been many who have used the term "criminal" in the past or approached as asymptotically close as possible without actually using it.  If a public institution wishes to state that something controversial and sensitive is "contested", it should do so without making a value statement as to whether the matter is "bitterly" or "lightly" or any "otherly" so.  The people who draft those statements are intelligent enough to know whether something subjective is likely to get up someone's nose, and intelligent enough to cut some slack for those who don't care to be defamed - even by association - for being ensnarled in a hell not of their making.  I'm not interested in feigning literal-minded ignorance to join a chorus of plausible deniability on behalf of those who know better.

As a matter of morality, I consider deliberate attacks against non-combatants to be evil.  It was evil before, it will be evil in the future; it is only that it has been tolerated to greater or lesser degrees at points in time.  Ultimately, all of the blood and treasure spilled in war is evil.  But you need to consider the purpose of the evil and the alternatives.  Here is what I find to be an interesting question: if I were conscripted against my will (as many were) to fight in a "teeth" arm (where the statistical risk of death or severe injury approaches or exceeds unity), how many lives of the arrogant, ignorant, uncaring, or cowardly people who failed to remove their own government of madmen before or while it pursued the enslavement and murder of much of Europe would I be justified in extinguishing so that I could survive and regain my individual freedom to live my life in peace away from an insane conflict not of my making or consent?

 

[phaedrus2]

Just some food for thought regarding the effectiveness of the air campaign.
Interesting piece from a chapter from Michael C.C. Adams' The Best War Ever.

"The daylight sacrifuces did not pay off in bombing accuracy.  Under perfect conditions only 50 percent of American bombs fell within a quarter of a mile of the target.  Fighter attack, flak, smoke, and cloud cover lowered efficiency.  American flyers estimated that as many as 90 percent of bombs could miss their targets (Perrett, 405; Eckert, 260).  Along with British area bombings, this caused hughe 'collateral damage' (to civilians), not only in Germany but in France and other occupied countries, creating resentment of the Allies.  For example, attacks on the submarine pens at Saint-Nazaire and Lorient destroyed the surrounding French towns but left the pens undamages.  'No dog or cat is left in these towns,' wrote German Admiral Karl Donitz.  'Nothing but the submarine shelters remain' (Franklin, 105).

How do we judge the strategic air offensive against Fortress Europe?  There isn;t a simple answer.  On the one hand, hopes that air power would provide a cost-effective, clinical, and humane method of destroying the enemy's power base proved illusory.  Niether Axis nor Allied air attacks slowed overall production or destroyed civilian morale:  both went up under duress.  The official U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (1946) estimated that it cost a million dollars in planes, bases, crews, and bombs to do a million dollars damage (Perrett, 437).  Since the Allies could afford the cost more than the Axis, the Allies won.

Air attacks extended the cruelty of war.  At least 635,000 German civilian men, women, and children died, along with thousands in the occupied countries (irving, 41).  Even if the Norden bombsight had proved reliable, the ditinction between military and civilian targets was largely lost in total war.  When bombers attacked a factory, a railroad marshalling yard, a dock, and oil refinery, or an electrical power system, they hit civilian workers and their families in the surrounding working class housing.  The longer a war continues, the greater the de-sensitization to enemy suffering, and the less concern about 'collateral damage'.  By June 1944 the Luftwaffe was defeated, and Allied planes roamed at will, seeking 'targets of opportunity', which inevitably included many nonmilitary structures.

This pattern reached its extreme with the destruction of Dresden, an undefended city that had neither industrial nor military significance.  On February 13 and 14, 1945, the city was bombed three times by the RAF and U.S. Either Air Force, creating a fire storm that killed up to 135,000 people and destroyed irreplaceable examples of medieval architecture.  Military historian James M. Morris concluded that, by the time Germany surrendered, virtually nothing of any significance was left to bomb.

On the other hand, the air offensive did make significant contributions to the Allied victory in western Europe.  Although German industrial production climbed, the rate would have been higher without the bombings.  By using the bombers as decoys in daylight raids and accepting a high cost in crews, Americans drew the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition that virtually destroyed it by D-Day, vastly helping the success of the invasion and saving the lives of Allied ground forces."

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm used to reading and hearing people dance around the point they're trying to make, or to lead others in a certain direction without stating the point indelicately.  (And I'm often guilty of the same.)  Chadderton was simply straightforward and indelicate, as have been many who have used the term "criminal" in the past or approached as asymptotically close as possible without actually using it.  If a public institution wishes to state that something controversial and sensitive is "contested", it should do so without making a value statement as to whether the matter is "bitterly" or "lightly" or any "otherly" so.  The people who draft those statements are intelligent enough to know whether something subjective is likely to get up someone's nose, and intelligent enough to cut some slack for those who don't care to be defamed - even by association - for being ensnarled in a hell not of their making.  I'm not interested in feigning literal-minded ignorance to join a chorus of plausible deniability on behalf of those who know better.

As a matter of morality, I consider deliberate attacks against non-combatants to be evil.  It was evil before, it will be evil in the future; it is only that it has been tolerated to greater or lesser degrees at points in time.  Ultimately, all of the blood and treasure spilled in war is evil.  But you need to consider the purpose of the evil and the alternatives.  Here is what I find to be an interesting question: if I were conscripted against my will (as many were) to fight in a "teeth" arm (where the statistical risk of death or severe injury approaches or exceeds unity), how many lives of the arrogant, ignorant, uncaring, or cowardly people who failed to remove their own government of madmen before or while it pursued the enslavement and murder of much of Europe would I be justified in extinguishing so that I could survive and regain my individual freedom to live my life in peace away from an insane conflict not of my making or consent?

+1

Concur fully.

 

[Strike]

...How do we judge the strategic air offensive against Fortress Europe?  There isn;t a simple answer.  On the one hand, hopes that air power would provide a cost-effective, clinical, and humane method of destroying the enemy's power base proved illusory.  Niether Axis nor Allied air attacks slowed overall production or destroyed civilian morale:  both went up under duress...

...This pattern reached its extreme with the destruction of Dresden, an undefended city that had neither industrial nor military significance.  On February 13 and 14, 1945, the city was bombed three times by the RAF and U.S. Either Air Force, creating a fire storm that killed up to 135,000 people and destroyed irreplaceable examples of medieval architecture.  Military historian James M. Morris concluded that, by the time Germany surrendered, virtually nothing of any significance was left to bomb....

On the other hand, the air offensive did make significant contributions to the Allied victory in western Europe.  Although German industrial production climbed, the rate would have been higher without the bombings.  By using the bombers as decoys in daylight raids and accepting a high cost in crews, Americans drew the Luftwaffe into a battle of attrition that virtually destroyed it by D-Day, vastly helping the success of the invasion and saving the lives of Allied ground forces."

And this could have been put on the panel and shown the controvery and the facts.