War Museum Controversy and Follow-up Thread [merged]

[ltmaverick25]

I have to disagree.  Telling the story is the single most important role a museam has to offer.  Museams are not, and should not be, just about the artifacts.  What good is an artifact if you dont understand any historical context?  What good is the artifiact if you dont know a thing about it?  Museams are a form of public history and they serve a vital role.  In my opinion our national war museam is one of the few that actually tells the story and brings the patron into the historical context that is ever so important.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Tim Cook last week (First World War Historian at the National War Museam) and got to hear his take on all of this.  He was involved in the museam overhaul in the early part of the decade.  He made it very clear that their mandate and their vision was to create a musem that told the story and did not limit itself to just the artifacts.  To that end, I think they did a great job of it.

On the matter of controversial paintings...  I dont know that I have developed an opinion of that yet.  I can see both sides of the argument there.

 

[ModlrMike]

de Chastelain, did I miss something? Currie and Simmonds dam straight, but de Chastelain I am not aware of anything outstanding unless maybe something in Ireland?

Hmm... joined as a Private, left as CDS. Qualifies in my book.

 

[observor 69]

Nine months a reserve private then into RMC. What is so unusual about that?
Yes he became CDS but we are talking about "notable " military figures. I can't see how he compares to the record of Currie and Simmonds.

Bio ref. http://www.cda-cdai.ca/CDAI/de%20CHASTELAIN.htm

 

[Michael OLeary]

Inclusion in the CWM shouldn't be based on popular vote, nor on the degree of public angst generated over how a story gets told to the exclusion of others.  That's how the Bomber Command fiasco happened, because some refused to admit to interpretations other than their "approved" editions.

If the CWM is to be limited to favourable opinions, popular generals and VC heroes, it will leave us with a thin and unbalanced overview of our military history.  If anyone wants that approach, stick to reading regimental histories, because no regiment ever played a small part in its own written history and all those little embarrassing parts can be left out when you control the content.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have to disagree.  Telling the story is the single most important role a museam has to offer.  Museams are not, and should not be, just about the artifacts.  What good is an artifact if you dont understand any historical context?  What good is the artifiact if you dont know a thing about it?  Museams are a form of public history and they serve a vital role.  In my opinion our national war museam is one of the few that actually tells the story and brings the patron into the historical context that is ever so important.

I had the pleasure of speaking with Tim Cook last week (First World War Historian at the National War Museam) and got to hear his take on all of this.  He was involved in the museam overhaul in the early part of the decade.  He made it very clear that their mandate and their vision was to create a musem that told the story and did not limit itself to just the artifacts.  To that end, I think they did a great job of it.

On the matter of controversial paintings...  I dont know that I have developed an opinion of that yet.  I can see both sides of the argument there.

My problem is in defining "THE STORY".

In a free society there is nothing wrong with those that wish to demean the soldier having the same opportunity as those that wish to respect him to have their say.

There is no single story.  There can never be.

From my point of view, again, place the artifacts on display.  Open up a library on site that carries all the books relevant to the subject.  Open up a multimedia presentation room where all the videos, films etc can be viewed.  Open up a gallery of paintings and show those that both object to and praise the actions of Canadians.

The result will be a clutter of information.....but the individual will be forced to find their own story.  There won't be consensus.

It serves national pride to be told a tale.  That is propaganda.  It doesn't serve truth..... however you perceive that.

I am very much opposed to the notion of received Truth.

When dealing with history it is curious as to how often who, when and where are debated,  let alone the what and the how.....and as to the why, there you get to right volumes with little to differentiate the text from the novel.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Have you been to the war museam or spoken to any of the historians that work there?  I am quite convinced that they have managed to tell a propoganda free story.  The story lists the facts, it does not provide interpretation, the interpretation is left to the individual patron.  Story and interpretation are two totally different things.

 

[Kirkhill]

I regret that I have not yet had the opportunity to visit the museum, or to talk to the historians involved.

My sense of it, though, is that with the best will in the world, with the best of intentions, you can not get two people to agree on very much at all.....especially when discussing history.  Otherwise there would only be one history of world war 1 and everybody would accept the British Official History.

Apparently that isn't the case.

 

[the 48th regulator]

Have you been to the war museam or spoken to any of the historians that work there?  I am quite convinced that they have managed to tell a propoganda free story.  The story lists the facts, it does not provide interpretation, the interpretation is left to the individual patron.  Story and interpretation are two totally different things.

Until, someone  opposes them.

Please read through the thread, and you will opposition to various exhibits that have been challenged.  Some successfule, some not, with regards to history being interpreted by a chosen few.

dileas

tess

 

[ltmaverick25]

I have read through the thread.  The point was already made by someone else, that the war museam should be able to do its job without being subject to the whim of popular opinion at the time.  You cant make everyone happy, nor should you try.  That is something Canadian society needs to come to terms with, or we can just be offended people...

 

[the 48th regulator]

I have read through the thread.  The point was already made by someone else, that the war museam should be able to do its job without being subject to the whim of popular opinion at the time.  You cant make everyone happy, nor should you try.  That is something Canadian society needs to come to terms with, or we can just be offended people...

As long as political views do not infiltrate, and infest, the descision of the WM.  AS we have seen in the recent past.....


dileas

tess

 

[ltmaverick25]

That is debatable weather politics played a role with some recent controversy.  There are some historians out there that will play that game, but, based on who we have working in the museam right now I am very confident that politics is a four letter word to these guys.  They want to tell the truth, the good with the ugly, and that sometimes upsets people.

 

[Danjanou]

Have you been to the war museam or spoken to any of the historians that work there?  I am quite convinced that they have managed to tell a propoganda free story.  The story lists the facts, it does not provide interpretation, the interpretation is left to the individual patron.  Story and interpretation are two totally different things.

And I call BS on that one. Read some of the signage there. Words have specific meanings.

 

[the 48th regulator]

That is debatable weather politics played a role with some recent controversy.  There are some historians out there that will play that game, but, based on who we have working in the museam right now I am very confident that politics is a four letter word to these guys.  They want to tell the truth, the good with the ugly, and that sometimes upsets people.

Well I surely hope that this is the case.  The past has proven that political agendas, were the norm in the past.  Just view some previous debacles at the new museum.


Korean Veteran Insult


War museum to reword controversial WWII display

The Paintings

Glad that you can assure us that the new people in place, have a different outlook on how the museum should be run.

dileas

tess

 

[ltmaverick25]

Well no, those guys are the same guys.  When I say new guys, I mean the last decades worth of guys.

Lets look at the Second World War example you posted though.  In this case, the museam was not taking a stand one way or the other as to the ethics of the bombing campaign.  Rather they were acknowledging the fact that there are indeed different interpretations about the morality of the campaign.  If you ask the guys there what they think, and I have, they will tell you they think that the controversy is BS, and that films like Valour and Horror treat the bombers unfairly.  So they werent trying to play politics, in fact in this case, Im sure those historians are on the veterans side.  What they were trying to do with that is present the two sides of that controversy.  The veterans of course didnt like that at all and the rest is history.

In fact, unless I am mistaken, in each case that was the issue.  The veterans took exception to something and all hell broke lose.  Dont get me wrong, I always find myself siding with the vets on these things but I dont think the intent of the war museam guys is to ruin their reputations or to present some sort of political agenda.

There are people, and some historians out there that have very different interpretations about some of these wars.  That is where the problem starts.  The guys at the war museam try to allow a bit of that into the museam to show that in some cases there are differing viewpoints, however, one of those viewpoints is often very insulting to veterans.  That is one of the hardest things about doing war history about people that are still alive.

Despite all of this, I still really think it is much more valuable to try and provide narrative instead of just relying on artifacts.  The people attending will get alot more out of it.  The think we have to remeber is that alot of the comon folks that go through that place dont have any historical background, they dont know much of anything and this provides them with a great chance to pick some up.

 

[mariomike]

Quote:
"In this case, the museam was not taking a stand one way or the other as to the ethics of the bombing campaign.  Rather they were acknowledging the fact that there are indeed different interpretations about the morality of the campaign."

Surviving aircrew felt betrayed by criticism of the strategic air offensive. It is disgraceful that they never received their own Campaign Medal. The pitiful prospects of surviving a tour in Bomber Command were only matched in hazard on either side by the German U-boat crews.
What they wanted, as far as I can tell, was a categorical assurance that the work they did was militarily and strategically justified.
I am certain that it was. 

 

[ltmaverick25]

Thats the other problem.  Those who are not busy questioning the morality of the bombing campaign are busy questioning the strategic effectiveness.  I personally think both criticisms are unfounded.  Its often easy to judge from ivory towers, id like to see what alot of these naysayers would have done in similar situations.  As for the effectiveness.  There is no doubt that the campaign had an effect on German ability to prosecute the war.

 

[mariomike]

There is no doubt that the campaign had an effect on German ability to prosecute the war.

Albert Speer said Bomber Command "created an armaments emergency in Germany which ruled out a major program to develop the atomic bomb".

 

[ltmaverick25]

Albert Speer said Bomber Command "created an armaments emergency in Germany which ruled out a major program to develop the atomic bomb".

That is definitly one of the arguments out there.  One of the other arguments floating around is that, although German industrial capacity continued to steadily increase at a very modest pace throughout the war, had the bombing campaign not been conducted, the German industrial capacity would have skyrocketed exponentially.

The big mistake that critics make is confusing the role of the bombers at the time.  They were never designed to win wars all by themselves.  They were just one more arm in a whole hockey sock full of assets available to the allies for use against the Germans.  Today we look at US air power in the Gulf War for example, and automatically assume that air power alone can win wars.  That simply is not the case, and it certainly isnt the case when you are dealing with two oponents that are cabaple of putting up a relatively equal fight.

 

[the 48th regulator]

That is definitly one of the arguments out there.  One of the other arguments floating around is that, although German industrial capacity continued to steadily increase at a very modest pace throughout the war, had the bombing campaign not been conducted, the German industrial capacity would have skyrocketed exponentially.

The big mistake that critics make is confusing the role of the bombers at the time.  They were never designed to win wars all by themselves.  They were just one more arm in a whole hockey sock full of assets available to the allies for use against the Germans.  Today we look at US air power in the Gulf War for example, and automatically assume that air power alone can win wars.  That simply is not the case, and it certainly isnt the case when you are dealing with two oponents that are cabaple of putting up a relatively equal fight.

What is your opinion, with regards to the statistics on Venereal disease with Canadian Soldiers during the Korean campagne, being broadcasted in the museum?

dileas

tess

 

[ltmaverick25]

What is your opinion, with regards to the statistics on Venereal disease with Canadian Soldiers during the Korean campagne, being broadcasted in the museum?

dileas

tess

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.