After more than two years of pressure from veterans and their political supporters, the Canadian War Museum has agreed to adjust the wording on an exhibit dealing with strategic bombing attacks during the Second World War, including the 1945 attack on Dresden. While the new wording has not yet been finalized, museum board members have been working with Bomber Command veterans groups to soothe their objections to the original 67-word description of the strategic importance of that controversial strategy. “The museum staff and professional historians will write the text but will be guided by feelings of respect,” says museum president Victor Rabinovitch. “We'll find a way to incorporate the respect while remaining faithful to the historical record.”
Those may be irreconcilable positions, given that the veterans do not even agree that the morality and strategic importance of those massive attacks on urban and industrial centres are contested today. With its agreement to adjust its depiction of historical controversies, the museum has sullied its proud boast of presenting “leading-edge scholarly content” to foster “understanding of armed conflict.” Worse, by bowing to pressure from one group, the museum has set an unfortunate precedent. Now, if other groups do not agree with the curators, it is clear the museum is open to adjustments in its message.
The decision to adopt a policy of area-bombing of entire cities was introduced in the early 1940s when British strategists decided to bring the war to Germany's population in cities such as Cologne, damaging civilian morale. Perhaps the most controversial of those attacks was the bombing of Dresden in February, 1945, in a bid to disrupt German communications and war production and to deter the advance of the Soviet Union.
The Royal Air Force, which incorporated Royal Canadian Air Force squadrons as well as individual Canadians, and the U.S. Army Air Force swept over the medieval city, dropping incendiary bombs in clusters. As the bombed sites caught fire, the air above became extremely hot and rose; cold air streamed in at ground level, sucking people into the flames. Tens of thousands of civilians, including many refugees from the eastern regions of the nation, perished. As victory became more certain, British prime minister Winston Churchill decided to concentrate on military targets.
The museum's wording attempted to capture the uncertain effects of Bomber Command attacks on those cities. “The value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested,” it said. The wording also pointed out that, although an estimated 600,000 people died in the tactical area-bombing of whole cities, “the raids resulted in only small reductions of German war production until late in the war.”
No one, certainly not the war museum, questions the bravery of those airmen. One in four Canadian members of Bomber Command perished. They had to cross Germany's formidable anti-aircraft defences to reach their targets, sweeping across in successive waves at night, often damaging strategic industrial complexes such as Essen. The war museum is a monument to their heroism. But, quite properly, it raises the question of the strategic usefulness of the campaign - especially the 1942 decision to add entire cities to the list of existing targets such as defence plants. Surely, that decision to damage civilian morale is called military history.
Earlier this year, a panel of four historians hired by the museum found the exhibit to be factually accurate. Two historians disagreed with the tone. The other two, including the esteemed Margaret MacMillan, author of Paris 1919: Six Months that Changed the World, defended the museum's independence. Ms. MacMillan told The Globe that a museum is not a war memorial. “It should allow the public to make up their own minds,” she said, warning that altering the exhibit to satisfy veterans could mean “whoever screams loudest can have their view made known.”
Unfortunately, the museum seems to be ignoring her advice. It is a truism that victors ensure how history treats them because they write their own tales. But those brave airmen are doing themselves a disservice when they attempt to remove any hint of the controversy surrounding their leaders' decisions. The museum should stand firm.
