War Museum Controversy and Follow-up Thread [merged]

[Nieghorn]

Made my third visit last weekend - gotta love half price Sundays and free Thursday nights.  I still need one more visit to finish reading and to go alone this time so I can do what I need to do without my non-history-nerd friends along.  I like the new building, the combined content, and even try and get down for the free movies and lectures.

On this last trip, I started to remember the things I missed in the old museum:
- the display on the Canadian POWs held by Japanese
- the display showing the crossroads in Italy (I think that's where it was, had a motorcycle)
- the French Resistance display (okay, not Can military, but it was interesting)
- the German border guard who screams 'Halt' when you go by . . . (unless I missed it, I start to suffer from sensory over-load by the time the Cold War comes around)
- and I wish the planes were down at ground level so you can get a better view - the Spitfire at least!
. . . and the old Hall of Honour with the VC winners.  That was my favourite in the old museum.  The new Hall of Honour is good, but I liked the personal stories and uniforms in the old one.

That said, I like the variety of content in the new one, more educational, even cultural content to show what life was like during the times displayed.  Also like seeing a little more info on the Boer War, and the cool display of the fallen soldier.  Having more weapons and armour is great as well . . . though I've been in the weapons vault when the vehicles were stored in the old parking garage down by Chinatown.  It was fantastic!  The curator, upon learning I had an interest in weapons, began showing me all the rare and interesting guns they had.  Even got to hold an MG42 and an MP44.  Access to that again would be brilliant!


ps . . . I think the staff car was Hitler's (one of many, I assume), and am sure the window was broken in transport, not actually shot.

 

[Conquistador]

I visited the museum 2 years ago, it was absolutley fantastic. We were there for 3 and 1/2 hours, and had to head back home before we got past the Korean war history, I would really like to go there again someday.

 

[Zartan]

My family's visit was similar - we had to rush through the cold war to leave (we had places to be, etc.). Didn't stop us from the gift shop though - which is somewhat overpriced, so be wary of your purchases. Books are good, they respect the suggested retail, but the miniatures can be had for much less in the market south of the American Embassy. That aside, the museum is amazing and wonderful. I second the cultural parts of the museum, it makes a great effort to show things at home, and the effects on soldiers, and to a smaller extent the soldier culture (for example, find the helmet that says "f*** peace" for a laugh). It is also very emotionally powerful. The displays on the battle of Beaumont-Hamel and and Thomas Ricketts were particularly moving for my mom and I. An excellent experience.

 

[Dog]

I visited the museum 2 years ago, it was absolutley fantastic. We were there for 3 and 1/2 hours, and had to head back home before we got past the Korean war history, I would really like to go there again someday.

Funny, the Canadian War Museum only opened in June of this year.....

If you are speaking in such glowing terms about the old war museum in Ottawa, then you have to go to the new one. The old one looks like some guys garage compared to this one.

 

[geo]

Dog,
Regardless of what the Old War Museum looked like, it was a great place to visit... too many things to display in too small a place was their only problem. The curators then (and now) continue to do a wonderful job...
Am just very happy that they have been given better resources to present our history (warts and all).

 

[geo]

well.......
Finaly got around to visiting the new Cdn War Museum...
All in all, I think they did a bang up job of assembling the material and presenting it in a coherent manner.... Had my 13 yr old in tow and he was fascinated, captivated and drinking up the knowledge.

Came across Pte Brown's painting...... how could I miss it?  While I do not begrudge the Museum displaying the painting, I would rather have had it as part of an area that could be dubbed our "wall of shame"......

All in all,  I LIKE IT!

Chimo!

 

[Infanteer]

Yes, I've been their on multiple occasions and it seems this thread was for naught - I think the place does a great job of telling our story.  I will be interested in seeing them update the fourth section with a Yugo section.

 

[geo]

... and let us not forget an Afghanistan section

 

[Bartok5]

Geo,

An "Afghanistan Exposition" is forthcoming.  The current Afghanistan "display" is limted to a C3 sniper rifle in a plexi case, with a brief mention of the world record shot during Op APOLLO.  My unit is in the process of turning in the actual MacMillan Tac 50 that made the shot to DLR, who will then hand it over to the Canadian War Museum as the centerpiece of the exposition.  We will also be providing the modified Brit Desert DPM smock worn by the sniper who made "the shot".  The rifle is shot out, and will be condemned/dewatted by DLR prior to the hand-over.

According to my DWAN e-mail traffic, the Afghanistan display will run from Dec 06 to Sep 07.

FWIW,

 

[geo]

Excellent!
Thks much Mark

CHIMO!

 

[George Wallace]

.......  My unit is in the process of turning in the actual MacMillan Tac 50 that made the shot to DLR, who will then hand it over to the Canadian War Museum as the centerpiece of the exposition.  We will also be providing the modified Brit Desert DPM smock worn by the sniper who made "the shot".  The rifle is shot out, and will be condemned/dewatted by DLR prior to the hand-over...

It is really a shame that the MP's, and also the Gun Plumbers, are following their own Regulations, and not those published by DHH (from a Higher Level), when it comes to preservation of Historic Weapons Artifacts.  They insist in destroying both the historic and monetary value of the piece, making it basically nothing more than worthless junk iron.

 

[geo]

Geworge, I hear ya.  To have a working weapon in hand is something that is ............ Priceless - regardless of never firing it.

 

[Bartok5]

George,

Although I wholeheartedly agree with your aversion to the "deactivation" of historical weapons, I think that you may be missing the point in this particular case.  The firearm in question is big-time BLR.  It is shot out.  None of the component parts are salvageable.  In fact, it has been  suggested that to fire the rifle further would be to invite an eventual catastropic structural failure.  It is simply not user-safe.  In such cases, it is actually prudent to render the firearm inactive.

Just a thought from the peanut gallery.....

 

[Slim]

George,

Although I wholeheartedly agree with your aversion to the "deactivation" of historical weapons, I think that you may be missing the point in this particular case.  The firearm in question is big-time BLR.  It is shot out.  None of the component parts are salvageable.  In fact, it has been  suggested that to fire the rifle further would be to invite an eventual catastropic structural failure.  It is simply not user-safe.  In such cases, it is actually prudent to render the firearm inactive.

Just a thought from the peanut gallery.....

I think what matters case is that the CF is willing to turn the thing over to be preserved...and not destroyed. The fact that it no longer works is of little consequence to my mind, especially if its now been pronounced unsafe to fire. Now when people walk through the CWM they can actually see the rifle that made that incredible shot! Kind of like another Lord Nelson's coat in a way...

More peanut gallery squeaking ;D

Slim

 

[exercist]

The Americans have indeed neglected to feature My Lai in their museums and in their recollections of Vietnam. The result of this neglect may arguably include Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, and other recent violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. And the result of that has arguably been a decline in global US influence and credibility.

On the War Museum, I was interested to see that there was a small display recognizing the Canadians who - for whatever reasons - volunteered to join the US armed forces during Vietnam. There was not however any recognition of the Canadians who served with the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion in the International Brigade during the Spanish Civil War. (Ironically, Canada did end up fighting Fascism in Europe a few years later....)

 

[warrickdll]

...
On the War Museum, I was interested to see that there was a small display recognizing the Canadians who - for whatever reasons - volunteered to join the US armed forces during Vietnam. There was not however any recognition of the Canadians who served with the MacKenzie-Papineau Battalion in the International Brigade during the Spanish Civil War. (Ironically, Canada did end up fighting Fascism in Europe a few years later....)

Good point (about non-Canadian History, not about your apparent anti-Americanism), it shouldn't have either. Just because a person serving in a foreign military happens to be Canadian doesn't make the event a part of Canadian military history. Though Canadians who served in British forces, prior to Canadian Citizenship (in the late 1940s), are rightfully a part of Canadian military history.

Edit: Apparent

 

[exercist]

I am sorry that is appears anti-American either to wonder why Canadians would volunteer to fight in a foreign war, or to highlight some recent problems - which most US service personnel I have spoken with also find deeply repugnant.  Michael Ignatieff and I both know that there is some risk in using the term "war crime" in the same breath as an ally; however, just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk", I would argue that "friends don't let friends violate the Laws of Armed Conflict".

Or are you criticizing my comments on US credibility and influence? Do you really think the US has as much of either as it did even in the immediate days after 9/11, when the entire world (including N Korea) was expressing support? And if not, why not? Cowboy tactics? Human rights violations? Kleptocracy? Illegal wars? Electoral fraud? Strategic and operational myopia?

Americans are my friends; America is our ally. I weep for them.

 

[the 48th regulator]

I am sorry that is appears anti-American either to wonder why Canadians would volunteer to fight in a foreign war, or to highlight some recent problems - which most US service personnel I have spoken with also find deeply repugnant.  Michael Ignatieff and I both know that there is some risk in using the term "war crime" in the same breath as an ally; however, just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk", I would argue that "friends don't let friends violate the Laws of Armed Conflict".

Or are you criticizing my comments on US credibility and influence? Do you really think the US has as much of either as it did even in the immediate days after 9/11, when the entire world (including N Korea) was expressing support? And if not, why not? Cowboy tactics? Human rights violations? Kleptocracy? Illegal wars? Electoral fraud? Strategic and operational myopia?

Americans are my friends; America is our ally. I weep for them.

Like we did the two major time earlier this century, we are a global community.  And maybe by us volunteering to fight "foreign" wars, we can stop "repugnant" regimes from committing atrocities.

I just plain weep for people who do not understand.

dileas

tess

 

[warrickdll]

The Americans have indeed neglected to feature My Lai in their museums and in their recollections of Vietnam. The result of this neglect may arguably include Guantanamo Bay, Abu Graib, and other recent violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. And the result of that has arguably been a decline in global US influence and credibility.

I am sorry that is appears anti-American either to wonder why Canadians would volunteer to fight in a foreign war, or to highlight some recent problems - which most US service personnel I have spoken with also find deeply repugnant.  Michael Ignatieff and I both know that there is some risk in using the term "war crime" in the same breath as an ally; however, just as "friends don't let friends drive drunk", I would argue that "friends don't let friends violate the Laws of Armed Conflict".

Or are you criticizing my comments on US credibility and influence? Do you really think the US has as much of either as it did even in the immediate days after 9/11, when the entire world (including N Korea) was expressing support? And if not, why not? Cowboy tactics? Human rights violations? Kleptocracy? Illegal wars? Electoral fraud? Strategic and operational myopia?

Americans are my friends; America is our ally. I weep for them.

I will stick to saying that you appear to have an anti-American bias, but I'd like to stick with the topic we're in.

...to wonder why Canadians would volunteer to fight in a foreign war...

The point being, as an example, a Canadian who joined the US army and fought in Vietnam is an American War veteran who happens to be a Canadian - not a Canadian War veteran. This makes a difference in what is and isn't Canadian Military history. This same principle would apply to your Spanish veterans.

 

[exercist]

48 Highrs - Please re-read my post carefully. If you are talking about the two times I think you are talking about, Canada went to war. Canadians, also and by exception, fought with allied units and formations, with the authority of the Canadian government. That is not fighting in a foreign war; that is fighting in a Canadian war.

Joining the US Armed Forces in order to fight in Vietnam is fighting in a foreign war. Isn't it?

Perhaps I would be a little less cynical if our allies were a little less idiosyncratic about which repugnant regimes they support and which ones they attack.