Skip to content
 

AN ENDURING CONTROVERSY:
THE STRATEGIC BOMBING CAMPAIGN DISPLAY IN THE CANADIAN WAR MUSEUM

Interim Report of the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence 

Chair, The Honourable Joseph A. Day
Deputy Chair, The Honourable Norman K. Atkins

June 2007


Members Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs 

The Honourable Joseph A. Day, Chair
The Honourable Norman K. Atkins, Deputy Chair
The Honourable Colin Kenny 

Other Senator who participated in the work of the Committee: The Honourable Roméo Dallaire

 

Order of Reference

Extract from the Journals of the Senate, Thursday, May 11, 2006:

The Honourable Senator Day moved, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dallaire:

That the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence be authorized to undertake a study on:

(a) the services and benefits provided to members of the Canadian Forces, veterans of war and peacekeeping missions and members of their families in recognition of their services to Canada, in particular examining:

access to priority beds for veterans in community hospitals;

availability of alternative housing and enhanced home care;

standardization of services throughout Canada;

monitoring and accreditation of long term care facilities;

(b) the commemorative activities undertaken by the Department of Veterans Affairs to keep alive for all Canadians the memory of the veterans achievements and sacrifices;

(c) the implementation of the recently enacted Veterans Charter;

That the papers and evidence received and taken during the First Session of the Thirty-eighth Parliament be referred to the Committee; and

That the Committee report to the Senate from time to time, no later than June 30, 2007.

After debate,

The question being put on the motion, it was adopted.

Paul C. Bélisle

Clerk of the Senate

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Senate Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs examined issues surrounding the unfortunate public dispute over a Canadian War Museum display relating to the allied strategic bombing campaign in Europe, during the Second World War.  

Many Honourable Senators, certainly members of the Subcommittee, have received numerous letters from the public on this issue. The majority came from veterans who felt strongly that the display dealing the operations of the Royal Air Force (RAF) Bomber Command, in which thousands of Canadian aircrew served,   inaccurately captures the reality of their service.

Recommendation 

After due consideration, the Subcommittee respectfully suggests that the Canadian War Museum has both the public responsibility and professional capacity to take the lead in resolving the disagreement. We feel they have the duty to review the detailed presentation of the display panel in question and that they will want to consider alternative ways of presenting an equally historically accurate version of its material, in a manner that eliminates the sense of insult felt by aircrew veterans and removes potential for further misinterpretation by the public.

As we began to investigate this issue, some questioned the need for a Senate Subcommittee to become involved in this debate at all. While our mandate does not specifically relate to heritage or historical issues, we do have a responsibility to monitor the effective and efficient expenditure of public funds, particularly in relation to issues involving Canadian veterans and so, in line with this duty, we felt it was appropriate for us to examine issues surrounding concern over the Bomber Command display in the Canadian War Museum. 

 

THE ISSUE 

Veterans, who served with RAF Bomber Command in the Second World War, feel insulted by a display at the Canadian War Museum, relating to the morality and effectiveness of the Allied strategic bombing campaign. The final display panel entitled The Enduring Controversy, reads: 

The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested. Bomber Command's aim was to crush civilian morale and force Germany to surrender by destroying its cities and industrial installations. Although Bomber Command and American attacks left 600,000 Germans dead, and more than five million homeless, the raids resulted in only small reductions in German war production until late in the war. 

The ire of aircrew veterans is raised by the first sentence, which they feel questions their value and morality. The second sentence also aggravates them because, in their view, it is an incomplete description of the role they played and neglects to mention attacks on many strategic military installations, as well as important tactical support to D-Day preparations, assault and subsequent break-out operations. They also think the last sentence is an inaccurate assessment of the effect and value of the strategic bombing campaign. Adjacent photographs in the display area, showing dead German corpses in the street and bombed-out city rubble, when viewed in conjunction with the last panel, have led some to argue that the combination of photos and panel wording implies Canadians involved in the bombing were "war criminals" who added little value to the Allied cause and that the Canadian War Museum has implicitly supported that view.

The Museum insists it is in no way trying to denigrate the ethics, morality and value of RCAF veterans and that the Enduring Controversy panel passage is an accurate and reasonable statement of fact.  

While the Museum is technically and professionally correct in its stand, it seems that the direct association of Bomber Command with the legitimate description of controversy over the nature of the strategic bombing campaign, in the last panel, has, unintentionally, been interpreted by individual veterans as a criticism of their morality and the value of their contribution to the overall war effort.  

It is unfortunate that this dispute has lingered for as long as it has and that it has settled into firm, some say obstinate, positions on both sides. The Subcommittee deeply regrets this development and hopes that, by its examination of this continuing disagreement, it will be able to help both sides resolve the impasse.

 

THE DISPLAY 

The Canadian War Museum's presentation of the air war is located in its Second World War gallery, one of the building's six permanent exhibitions. The entire display is not just about Bomber Command or strategic bombing, but strategic bombing is clearly its principal component.

The air war section indicates repeatedly the size and nature of the Canadian effort. It discusses the strategic context to air operations and it identifies the nature of enemy defences against which Canadians were pitted. It includes casualty and loss statistics. The display also emphasizes the human experience of taking this fight to the enemy and discusses the nature of the German defence effort, including the many resources Germany committed to fending off or recovering from bomber attacks. At the end of the display, one finds the Enduring Controversy panel that is the subject of on-going dispute. 

 

THE COMPLAINTS 

When they appeared before the Subcommittee, representatives of the Royal Canadian Legion spoke on behalf of nearly 400,000 Legion members. Their remarks focussed on the issue of the Enduring Controversy panel itself.  The Legion felt that, by elevating a huge placard, with headline font in a central position, reading An Enduring Controversy and by accompanying it with wall size photos of dead German civilians in the streets of bomb‑ravaged cities, the Museum generated a biased, unbalanced message, directly questioning the aims of the campaign, its effectiveness and the sacrifice of the veterans involved.

In November 2006, the issue was formally taken up by General (Retired) Paul Manson, the Chairman of the War Museum Committee, a committee serving the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation. General Manson fully supported the appeal for a compromise and presented the appeal to the Board of Trustees. 

In response to the Board's request that the matter be reviewed, the Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Museum of Civilization Corporation, enlisted the support of four distinguished Canadian historians[1] to review the exhibit and the panel in question. The historians were asked two questions: first; does the War Museum section on the strategic air bombing campaign provide a balanced presentation and does it explain the part that strategic bombing played in the wider European military campaign? Second; one panel in the current installation entitled An Enduring Controversy has been criticized by some people.  Does this panel appropriately present current understanding of some of the impacts of the bombing campaign during the war? 

The historians were divided in their opinions, particularly as to question two concerning the panel. Despite some concerns about the tone and content of the display, Museum officials (backed by the Board of Trustees) decided not to alter any of the panel's words or adjacent pictures.

This decision had the effect of hardening positions on both sides of the argument.

 

SUBCOMMITTEE VIEWS 

The Subcommittee's aim is not to engage in historical argument, but to facilitate an effective resolution to this 'enduring controversy.' Also, at this time, the Subcommittee does not intend to venture into consideration of any issues relating to Canadian War Museum governance, as raised by some of the witnesses.  

This is a somewhat 'asymmetric' controversy. The veterans' argument is based on fact and emotion, while the Canadian War Museum stand is based on fact and academic objectivity. The Subcommittee understands both positions. 

The Subcommittee truly regrets that this dispute has gone as far as it has. In our view, it is an entirely unintended consequence of a genuine professional effort on the part of the Canadian War Museum to present a historically accurate and ethically substantive depiction of the allied strategic bombing effort in the Second World War.  

We wish to note that all witnesses who appeared before us on this matter unanimously agreed that the Canadian War Museum was doing an outstanding job in its overall efforts to present Canada's war history to Canadians and international visitors. The Subcommittee also understands and agrees that professional museums and their well-qualified staff must be allowed to exercise academic and curatorial independence, without being inappropriately influenced by outside groups with credible special interests. In the end, displays must be historically accurate and resistant to misinterpretation.  

Veterans' acknowledge and accept that a valid academic controversy over the value and morality of the strategic bombing does indeed exist, and did exist during the Second World War. They point out however, that such controversy existed above and beyond Bomber Command personnel, who loyally and professionally carried out missions assigned by duly elected political leaders and appointed military commanders. Even today, they say, the dispute resides almost exclusively in the academic realm of historians. 

Ultimately, we cannot disregard the fact that, as mentioned earlier, Honourable Senators have received a significant amount of mail from the public on this issue. We note that while the majority of our mail came from veterans whose attention is clearly focussed on the Enduring Controversy panel, the existence of the dispute indicates that the panel text is liable to misinterpretation by the public. We think the removal of any potential for such misunderstanding is the essence of a good remedy in this case. 

During testimony we heard from Canadian War Museum officials and other independent historical and curatorial experts that there is indeed more than one way to tell a story accurately. History is, after all, interpretive. This being the case, we feel that no one display, in any museum, should be immutable. In fact, we think continual review and research, along with educated re-thinking of past events are important in preserving the currency and relevance of historical displays.

 

CONCLUSION 

The Subcommittee has concluded it is now in the best interests of all concerned that good faith initiatives on the part of all parties be initiated as soon as possible.  

As noted above in the Executive Summary, we respectfully suggest that the Canadian War Museum has both the public responsibility and professional capacity to take the lead in resolving the disagreement. We feel they have the duty to review the detailed presentation of the display panel in question and that they will want to consider alternative ways of presenting an equally historically accurate version of its material, in a manner that eliminates the sense of insult felt by aircrew veterans and removes potential for further misinterpretation by the public.  

Finally, this is one disagreement that is equally troubling to all parties and its existence provides a distinctly unneeded public spectacle. We are eager to see it concluded and thus allow the Canadian War Museum to return, without distraction, to its world-class endeavours.


[1] The January 2007 review was conducted by Dr. David Bercuson of the University of Calgary, Dr. Serge Bernier of the Department of National Defence, Dr. Margaret MacMillan of the University of Toronto and Dr. Desmond Morton of McGill University.


Back to top