when Politics/Lobbyists interfere with the writing of history

[HistoryBuff44]

I read this article in the globe and mail today:

G&M article

I think its worrysome when politics or lobby groups get mixed into the writing of history. I can understand the anger of veterans, i certainly wouldnt like the insinuation that you were used to slaughter civilians, but should society let that anger change the way it is written into the history books?

Was that even the situation? From all the reading i have done on the second world war, it would seem that at the time of those cities being obliterated (im referring to the purposeful firebombing of dresden and a couple others which killed, according to the article, 600,000 people), that the outcome of the war was not in question by that time, it was simply when would germany finally surrender. was it retribution for what germany did to warsaw, to so many cities in russia and of course london and other UK cities? To say those events must have been an influence is an understatement.

Just because we dont like what an event in history means, should we not accept what was done and take what lessons we can for the future? Or are they right, was the firebombing a necessary event of the war? Does it even matter... one way or the other?

I look foreward to your comments.

[M.Dancer]

that the outcome of the war was not in question by that time, it was simply when would germany finally surrender.

What would your guess be of the amount of Allied (and russian soldiers) that dies each day as the European war wound to a close?

[jennie]

I read this article in the globe and mail today:

G&M article

I think its worrysome when politics or lobby groups get mixed into the writing of history. I can understand the anger of veterans, i certainly wouldnt like the insinuation that you were used to slaughter civilians, but should society let that anger change the way it is written into the history books?

Was that even the situation? From all the reading i have done on the second world war, it would seem that at the time of those cities being obliterated (im referring to the purposeful firebombing of dresden and a couple others which killed, according to the article, 600,000 people), that the outcome of the war was not in question by that time, it was simply when would germany finally surrender. was it retribution for what germany did to warsaw, to so many cities in russia and of course london and other UK cities? To say those events must have been an influence is an understatement.

Just because we dont like what an event in history means, should we not accept what was done and take what lessons we can for the future? Or are they right, was the firebombing a necessary event of the war? Does it even matter... one way or the other?

I look foreward to your comments.

I agree. In honouring the bravery of the forces, we cannot forget or try to hide from history the fact that sometimes they were given bad orders from above.

[HistoryBuff44]

What would your guess be of the amount of Allied (and russian soldiers) that dies each day as the European war wound to a close?

From that point (early Feb 1945) to the end of the war there would have been a few thousand. Do you think it was an attempt to "shock" germany into surrender?

[White Doors]

It was total war.

period.

[HistoryBuff44]

It was total war.

period.

Would you say then that during a war anything goes?

[White Doors]

Would you say then that during a war anything goes?

The Geneva conventions do not forbid aerial bombardment of cities.

[Argus]

I read this article in the globe and mail today:

G&M article

I think its worrysome when politics or lobby groups get mixed into the writing of history. I can understand the anger of veterans, i certainly wouldnt like the insinuation that you were used to slaughter civilians, but should society let that anger change the way it is written into the history books?

Was that even the situation? From all the reading i have done on the second world war, it would seem that at the time of those cities being obliterated (im referring to the purposeful firebombing of dresden and a couple others which killed, according to the article, 600,000 people), that the outcome of the war was not in question by that time, it was simply when would germany finally surrender. was it retribution for what germany did to warsaw, to so many cities in russia and of course london and other UK cities? To say those events must have been an influence is an understatement.

Just because we dont like what an event in history means, should we not accept what was done and take what lessons we can for the future? Or are they right, was the firebombing a necessary event of the war? Does it even matter... one way or the other?

I look foreward to your comments.

From my understanding the Vets had no desire to change history. What they objected to was the "interpretation" of history through the eyes of modern, liberal elites who had no concept of things like danger, who had never known want or need or fear, and who liked to "interpret" the motivations and morality of people in another era according to the intellectually lazy morality of this one.

[HistoryBuff44]

The Geneva conventions do not forbid aerial bombardment of cities.

Interesting, it does however afford the protection of "innocent" people when renduring aid to wounded others. the bombing lasted for 3 days, the argument could easily be made that there were innocent civilians rendering aid to many wounded soldiers stationed in the city while the bombing continued.

I think the convention was ignored by both sides when it suited their needs.

Edited August 30, 2007 by HistoryBuff44

[noahbody]

I read this article in the globe and mail today:

G&M article

was it retribution for what germany did to warsaw, to so many cities in russia and of course london and other UK cities? To say those events must have been an influence is an understatement.

(1) Internal Royal Air Force memo (January, 1945)

Dresden, the seventh largest city in Germany and not much smaller than Manchester, is also far the largest unbombed built-up the enemy has got. In the midst of winter with refugees pouring westwards and troops to be rested, roofs are at a premium. The intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most, behind an already partially collapsed front, to prevent the use of the city in the way of further advance, and incidentally to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.

http://web311.pavilion.net/2WWdresden.htm

35,000, not 600,000 were killed in the bombing of Dresden. To say those events must have been an influence is ignorant.

[jennie]

http://web311.pavilion.net/2WWdresden.htm

35,000, not 600,000 were killed in the bombing of Dresden. To say those events must have been an influence is ignorant.

Can you verify your statement ? ... because the historians who wrote the statement say 600,000

oops! 600,000 is the entire strategic bombing initiative against Germany, not just Dresden.

Edited August 30, 2007 by jennie

[bk59]

The Geneva conventions do not forbid aerial bombardment of cities.

Not generally, but I think that they do say that you shouldn't be targeting civilians. Fire bombing is particularly nasty because of how it kills and because you can't control it - it kills indiscriminately. Civilians are just as likely to be sucked into the fire or asphyxiated by these weapons. While it is true traditional bombs can kill civilians as well, fire bombing is much more likely to spread to the civilian population. I think this is one of the reasons why people have raised moral issues with the fire bombing of Dresden.

From my understanding the Vets had no desire to change history. What they objected to was the "interpretation" of history through the eyes of modern, liberal elites who had no concept of things like danger, who had never known want or need or fear, and who liked to "interpret" the motivations and morality of people in another era according to the intellectually lazy morality of this one.

Part of what was objected to was the phrase: "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested." That seems to be true. Hiding from that fact won't make the debate go away. Also, I think the decision to fire bomb Dresden was debated even at the time (see here). So let's not blame "the intellectually lazy morality of this" era. Whatever that means. These weapons & decisions were questionable at the time and remain so today.

[Argus]

Not generally, but I think that they do say that you shouldn't be targeting civilians. Fire bombing is particularly nasty because of how it kills and because you can't control it - it kills indiscriminately. Civilians are just as likely to be sucked into the fire or asphyxiated by these weapons. While it is true traditional bombs can kill civilians as well, fire bombing is much more likely to spread to the civilian population. I think this is one of the reasons why people have raised moral issues with the fire bombing of Dresden.

Part of what was objected to was the phrase: "the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested." That seems to be true. Hiding from that fact won't make the debate go away. Also, I think the decision to fire bomb Dresden was debated even at the time (see here). So let's not blame "the intellectually lazy morality of this" era. Whatever that means. These weapons & decisions were questionable at the time and remain so today.

It appears to me that you and the others are using one particular and spectacular bombing episode at the tail end of the war in which a number of people basically said "Look, we've won anyway, let's not totally wreck the place" to question the merits of the entire strategic bombing campaign throughout the war. That does not seem intellectually sound to me.

Edited August 31, 2007 by Argus

[bk59]

It appears to me that you are using one particular and spectacular bombing episode at the tail end of the war in which a number of people basically said "Look, we've won anyway, let's not totally wreck the place" to question the merits of the entire strategic bombing campaign throughout the war. That does not seem intellectually sound to me.

Not at all. In the first half of my post I am talking about fire bombing in general and not any specific bombing campaign. And I think the arguments against fire bombing are quite convincing. There are other ways to bomb a city that do not needlessly and cruelly endanger civilian lives.

As for the second half of my post, I am referring to the article which states that the contested language refers to language on the panel about the fire bombing of Dresden. I even gave a link that deals with how the decision to fire bomb Dresden was questioned at the time.

I can see some confusion if maybe you just read the quote I pulled from the article ("the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested"). But within the context of the entire post I am talking about the fire bombing of Dresden specifically, not a campaign.

You seem to have a problem with people examining history critically. Let's say we were talking about the effectiveness of the entire bombing campaign. I think there probably is a debate about the value of the campaign. Can supporters of the campaign point to evidence that shows German production was seriously affected by the campaign? Can those who criticize the campaign show that there may have been a more effective way of producing the same results? And if there really is a debate, why shouldn't that be mentioned on the museum's panel?

I don't know what you mean by the "intellectually lazy morality of this [era]", but if you are suggesting that we should not critically examine our past, especially during wartime, then I think you are on the wrong track. How else can we learn from our mistakes if we blindly accept the opinions of the time?

[Argus]

Not at all. In the first half of my post I am talking about fire bombing in general and not any specific bombing campaign. And I think the arguments against fire bombing are quite convincing. There are other ways to bomb a city that do not needlessly and cruelly endanger civilian lives.

The debate, however, was about a panel attached to pictures of the Dresdan bombing, and most of the arguments being used are regarding the Dresdan bombing, and so cannot logically be inferred to support criticism of the entire strategic bombing campaign. Nevertheless, they are being so used in the museum's panel.

I can see some confusion if maybe you just read the quote I pulled from the article ("the value and morality of the strategic bomber offensive against Germany remains bitterly contested"). But within the context of the entire post I am talking about the fire bombing of Dresden specifically, not a campaign.

Perhaps, but in the actual case you are citing the panel, depicting Dresdan, is used to support suggestions that the morality and wisdom of the entire campaign should be questioned, as it clearly refers to the total civilian casualties of the bombing war.

You seem to have a problem with people examining history critically. Let's say we were talking about the effectiveness of the entire bombing campaign. I think there probably is a debate about the value of the campaign.

The problem I have is with people many decades later leisurely examining a wide variety of records, and using today's morality in order to criticise the morality of those who acted at the time, without the time or ability to examine those records and living under wartime conditions which also included daily bombing raids by the Germans. The idea such people were going to have the time or inclination to ponder whether or not the morality of their own bombing ought to be examined and perhaps restrained because of guilt over what punishment the German populace was feeling is absurd. We are speaking about an era of total war, of people who spent their nights in subways to avoid the nightly bombing raids by the Germans, people who had all lost friends and loved ones to the Germans, whose entire world now revolved around the war and its prosecution. You cannot seriously expect to determine the morality of their actions without placing them in context and attempting to put yourself into the same frame of reference as that in which they lived.

[White Doors]

Taylor has benefited from the opening up of the former East German archives and, as a German speaker, he has been able to research his subject thoroughly. He has looked at the history of the city (large parts were destroyed by war several times before 1945) and its social and cultural background. The myth has it that Dresden was full of harmless, arts-loving innocents concerned only with manufacturing luxury goods such as cameras and china. In fact, Dresden was a Nazi stronghold before Hitler even took power. Martin Mutschmann became the regime's longest-serving Gauleiter (governor), and one of its most brutal. Anti-Semitism was a popular policy pursued with gusto. In 1938 the people of Dresden sacked the synagogue, one of the city's most beautiful and arresting buildings. And though the city was known around the world as "Florence on the Elbe", by 1945 it was home to no fewer than 127 factories employed in war work – work that occupied the vast majority of the population and that, in the context of the war, made it a legitimate military target.

By February 1945, Dresden had also become an important railhead, with hundreds of thousands of troops heading to the rapidly approaching Russian front - and it was for this reason, officially, that Dresden was bombed: we were helping the Russians. As Taylor proves, the Nazis were every bit as keen on wiping out cities as the Allies, but by 1945 we were better at it. Over Dresden, the conditions were perfect: the anti-aircraft defences had largely been removed, the sky was clear, and the targeting as precise as the technology of the day allowed.

source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml.../29/bomain.html

I also think that this quote is particularly telling in regards to the thread title:

It was Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda chief, who picked on Dresden as his final, most cynical PR scoop. Amazingly, it is the story he spun that we still believe today. Perhaps with this fine, highly readable and scholarly work, we can finally view the terrible destruction of Dresden with renewed objectivity.

The Revisionism and twisting of the facts what modern revisionists are buying, is that of Goebbels himself.

Deliciously ironic I think.

Edited August 31, 2007 by White Doors

[Army Guy]

Argus:

Very Well said.

History is written to record facts of that period of time as they happened, we have no right to change it with our interputations or thoughts, as they are not facts of history but rather one persons opinions.

[bk59]

The problem I have is with people many decades later leisurely examining a wide variety of records, and using today's morality in order to criticise the morality of those who acted at the time, without the time or ability to examine those records and living under wartime conditions which also included daily bombing raids by the Germans. The idea such people were going to have the time or inclination to ponder whether or not the morality of their own bombing ought to be examined and perhaps restrained because of guilt over what punishment the German populace was feeling is absurd. We are speaking about an era of total war, of people who spent their nights in subways to avoid the nightly bombing raids by the Germans, people who had all lost friends and loved ones to the Germans, whose entire world now revolved around the war and its prosecution. You cannot seriously expect to determine the morality of their actions without placing them in context and attempting to put yourself into the same frame of reference as that in which they lived.

First, the panel said that the value & morality was being debated. This is clearly true - people are debating this. In my opinion the statement itself did not pass judgement.

Even so, your logic is flawed. While it is true we must judge historical situations within their historical context, that does not mean that we need to accept the same conclusion that something was morally right or wrong. Look at the history of slavery or the history of denying a woman's right to vote in elections. In that context a number of people truly believed that non-whites were inferior and were in fact property to be bought and sold. People believed that women should not vote for a variety of reasons. These were acceptable opinions at the time. That does not mean that today we have to accept the same conclusion that these acts were morally acceptable. In fact, it would do us all good to take a hard look at these situations to make sure that we do not repeat our mistakes.

As another quick example, take the internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII. I think most people today would agree that imprisoning people based simply on their ethnicity is unacceptable, no matter if the country is at war and people are scared. It is particularly during the times when we are under pressure and scared that we must remember what is right and wrong. And history can remind us of this.

[Argus]

First, the panel said that the value & morality was being debated. This is clearly true - people are debating this. In my opinion the statement itself did not pass judgement.

The statement is essentially meaningless. Being debated? By whom? A very few liberal historians? One could say that the value of adults having sex with children is being debated, as well. There are certainly some who advocate it. That does not mean it's a serious national issue or that very many people actually question the present policy of prohibiting this type of activity.

Even so, your logic is flawed. While it is true we must judge historical situations within their historical context, that does not mean that we need to accept the same conclusion that something was morally right or wrong. Look at the history of slavery or the history of denying a woman's right to vote in elections. In that context a number of people truly believed that non-whites were inferior and were in fact property to be bought and sold. People believed that women should not vote for a variety of reasons. These were acceptable opinions at the time. That does not mean that today we have to accept the same conclusion that these acts were morally acceptable.

In the context of what people knew, of the level of sophistication of their society, of their upbringing, they were acting within normal parameters. They were considered quite moral by their peers. The problem is that our culture has become increasingly sophisticated over the years to the point that virtually all public social policy throughout our history would be considered, at least to a degree, reprehensible today. Homosexuals used to be arrested. Phsyciatrists dutifully pronounced that they were sick people, that there was something wrong with them. They knew this because the psychological texts said so, that homosexuality was some kind of twisted deviancy. That was true into the sixties. Was a doctor acting under the assumption that what he learned in medical school was correct immoral for saying it? Slaves were simply a fact of life, these semi-humans, as the locals thought of them, who would probably be starving in Africa were it not for the kindness of taking them here, giving them steady work and steady food.

]As another quick example, take the internment of Japanese Canadians during WWII. I think most people today would agree that imprisoning people based simply on their ethnicity is unacceptable, no matter if the country is at war and people are scared. It is particularly during the times when we are under pressure and scared that we must remember what is right and wrong. And history can remind us of this.

At the time, people honestly believed them to be a threat. And people acting under threat act in different ways than comfortable liberals pondering history from the safety of their leather office chairs. Morality is flexible in the face of danger. You're allowed to kill people if you feel threatened. What we ask in terms of morality is whether that fear was reasonable at the time to the person or persons feeling it.

[bk59]

The statement is essentially meaningless. Being debated? By whom? A very few liberal historians? One could say that the value of adults having sex with children is being debated, as well. There are certainly some who advocate it. That does not mean it's a serious national issue or that very many people actually question the present policy of prohibiting this type of activity.

There is no equivalence between the debate over the fire bombing of Dresden and your so-called "debate" over pedophilia. Read the link I gave in my first post on this topic. Good luck finding that sort of "debate" over pedophilia. You can choose to ignore the debate if you want, but that doesn't mean it isn't there and that it isn't valid.

In the context of what people knew, of the level of sophistication of their society, of their upbringing, they were acting within normal parameters. They were considered quite moral by their peers. The problem is that our culture has become increasingly sophisticated over the years to the point that virtually all public social policy throughout our history would be considered, at least to a degree, reprehensible today.

...

At the time, people honestly believed them to be a threat. And people acting under threat act in different ways than comfortable liberals pondering history from the safety of their leather office chairs. Morality is flexible in the face of danger. You're allowed to kill people if you feel threatened. What we ask in terms of morality is whether that fear was reasonable at the time to the person or persons feeling it.

Yes, certain acts may have been considered moral at the time. That does not mean that they were right. If you want to defend slavery today because in the past some people were considered property then go ahead. The way you are arguing I would fully expect you to agree that if a community today decided that they would bring back slavery then that would be alright with you, as long as the entire community considered it an acceptable practice. As long as "they were acting within normal parameters" of their society then I guess anything would be acceptable to you.

Even so, you seem to have missed something that is quite obvious. The Dresden bombing is not being questioned by "a very few liberal historians." These are not "comfortable liberals pondering history from the safety of their leather office chairs." At the time of the bombing these acts were being questioned. By your logic if I had an opinion on a news article from a few days ago then that would make me a historian.

[Argus]

There is no equivalence between the debate over the fire bombing of Dresden and your so-called "debate" over pedophilia. Read the link I gave in my first post on this topic. Good luck finding that sort of "debate" over pedophilia. You can choose to ignore the debate if you want, but that doesn't mean it isn't there and that it isn't valid.

What constitutes a valid debate vs an invalid debate? There are clearly many people who believe that adults should have sex with children, and advocate it. I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding them on the internet. But that really isn't the point. There are "debates" or disagreements about virtually everything in life and every aspect of history, as well as every historical figure. The mere fact there is a "debate" on a given subject does not make it something which need to be mentioned in a museum. As an example. You might see a portrait of Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe. Would it be necessary to write, under that portrait "There is a debate regarding whether Eisenhower was having an affair with his driver"?. Or under a picture of Canadian troops coming ashore on D-day "There is a debate about whether or not some Canadian soldiers executed Germans they captured rather than taking them prisoner". I mean, you could do this sort of thing over almost everything if you wanted to.

Yes, certain acts may have been considered moral at the time. That does not mean that they were right. If you want to defend slavery today because in the past some people were considered property then go ahead. The way you are arguing I would fully expect you to agree that if a community today decided that they would bring back slavery then that would be alright with you, as long as the entire community considered it an acceptable practice. As long as "they were acting within normal parameters" of their society then I guess anything would be acceptable to you.

Are you getting upset by the discussion? You appear to be attempting to personalize things for some reason. The point I am making is that morality is based on knowledge, on upbringing, culture and values. For example, a slave-owner who treated his slaves much more humanely than most of his contemporaries might be considered to be a particularly "moral" man, for his time, despite the fact he was a slave owner. Your moral absolutism fails, I think, to take any consideration of the effort needed by an individual to rise above the common beliefs and his or her own upbringing and teaching. It judges people who are merely living according to the requirements of their society as being morally inferior to you, even though you are merely living according to the requirements of our society now. You might accept yourself as being culturally superior, but you are not morally superior.

Even so, you seem to have missed something that is quite obvious. The Dresden bombing is not being questioned by "a very few liberal historians." These are not "comfortable liberals pondering history from the safety of their leather office chairs." At the time of the bombing these acts were being questioned. By your logic if I had an opinion on a news article from a few days ago then that would make me a historian.

Yes, and once again you are missing the point. The plaque did not say that Dresden was immoral, it used the example of Dresden to impute that the entire strategic bombing campaign was immoral.

[bk59]

What constitutes a valid debate vs an invalid debate? There are clearly many people who believe that adults should have sex with children, and advocate it. I'm sure you won't have any trouble finding them on the internet. But that really isn't the point. There are "debates" or disagreements about virtually everything in life and every aspect of history, as well as every historical figure. The mere fact there is a "debate" on a given subject does not make it something which need to be mentioned in a museum. As an example. You might see a portrait of Eisenhower, the supreme allied commander in Europe. Would it be necessary to write, under that portrait "There is a debate regarding whether Eisenhower was having an affair with his driver"?. Or under a picture of Canadian troops coming ashore on D-day "There is a debate about whether or not some Canadian soldiers executed Germans they captured rather than taking them prisoner". I mean, you could do this sort of thing over almost everything if you wanted to.

If the event being discussed in the panel directly led to the debate then the museum has every right to include that information on the panel. Especially in a case like this where arguments have been made on both sides for decades between numerous people such as military personnel, academics, government officials/politicians, etc. When a lobby group of any sort pushes to cleanse material in a museum then it does not bode well for an open and honest examination of history.

Are you getting upset by the discussion? You appear to be attempting to personalize things for some reason.

I do enjoy it when people on this forum begin to start with these types of statements. If by personalize things you mean saying that your logic leads you to a certain position then sure, consider it personal.

The point I am making is that morality is based on knowledge, on upbringing, culture and values. For example, a slave-owner who treated his slaves much more humanely than most of his contemporaries might be considered to be a particularly "moral" man, for his time, despite the fact he was a slave owner. Your moral absolutism fails, I think, to take any consideration of the effort needed by an individual to rise above the common beliefs and his or her own upbringing and teaching. It judges people who are merely living according to the requirements of their society as being morally inferior to you, even though you are merely living according to the requirements of our society now. You might accept yourself as being culturally superior, but you are not morally superior.

I make no claims about being superior. You however seem to think that no one should question the past. The problem is your moral relativism. If there existed a society today that, "based on knowledge, upbringing, culture and values" enslaved certain ethnicities, treated women like property, outlawed free speech with respect to religion, etc., would you defend that society? Would you argue that they are right? If the so-called "requirements of their society" meant that adults were training child soldiers to kill their families & villages, would that be acceptable to you?

A balance must be struck between absolutism and relativism. On this topic my point has never been to judge people from the past, certainly not on a personal level. My point is that we need to examine how we acted in the past so that we do not repeat our mistakes. And yes, this means judging morality by our standards today. Because that is part of the point - to ensure that given a similar situation we do not betray what we believe in.

Yes, and once again you are missing the point. The plaque did not say that Dresden was immoral, it used the example of Dresden to impute that the entire strategic bombing campaign was immoral.

Allow me to be very explicit since I can see where the misinterpretation came from. At the time of the bombing the policy of area bombardment was being questioned. The fire bombing of Dresden led to a questioning of how the entire policy was being carried out. So yes, I am quite aware of what the panel was saying. And my point goes directly to your statement that only comfortable, liberal historians have recently found a problem with the campaign.

Even Churchill had his concerns after Dresden in a draft memo from March 28, 1945. After responses from people like the Chiefs of Staff and RAF Bomber Command the language was changed, but there still seems to be a questioning of the policy in his final memo of April 1, 1945.

[Army Guy]

BK59:

If the event being discussed in the panel directly led to the debate then the museum has every right to include that information on the panel. Especially in a case like this where arguments have been made on both sides for decades between numerous people such as military personnel, academics, government officials/politicians, etc. When a lobby group of any sort pushes to cleanse material in a museum then it does not bode well for an open and honest examination of history.

The museum in question was designed and built to display Canada's war history period. The good, Bad and ugly to lay it out as factual as possiable. It is not the musuem nor it's directing staff's job, nor right, to offer or place an opinion on a piece of history. It's main focus must be to layout each piece with just the facts.

The layouts or exhibits may spark debates, by numerous groups, as they try to fill in the unanswered questions, or offer thier interputation on the events, but this function must be left to those whom view the displays not the museum or it's staff. This is how history gets rewritten. In this case the lobby group just wants the facts prsented not someones opinion that has not been proven as history or fact.

A balance must be struck between absolutism and relativism. On this topic my point has never been to judge people from the past, certainly not on a personal level. My point is that we need to examine how we acted in the past so that we do not repeat our mistakes. And yes, this means judging morality by our standards today. Because that is part of the point - to ensure that given a similar situation we do not betray what we believe in

It's easy to judge another without all the facts as Argus pionted out, it was a period of total war, and morality changes when man engages in war with very little rules. One must have all the facts, before one judges an entire generation for thier actions.

Perhaps you can explain what leasons man took out of WWII and this era of total war, and have we put any of those leasons into practice today. just a quick look and and i'd say no,not really, instead we continued on developing better arms, improving our Wpns of mass destruction, to the piont now where one wpn could kill more people with one detention than was killed in both World wars combined. Wars continue, millions still die.

Allow me to be very explicit since I can see where the misinterpretation came from. At the time of the bombing the policy of area bombardment was being questioned. The fire bombing of Dresden led to a questioning of how the entire policy was being carried out.

I think if you read your own links a few times the answer is in there. The time is end March beginning Apr, allieds are well inside germany, the war is very close to the end, in fact Germany surrendered all it's forces on the 7 May...Allied commanders are now thinking about rebuilding Europe, and Britian..and are concerned with doing excessive damage in Germany as that would take away resources required to rebuild Britian.

The question about Dresden was case in piont, the entire city was heavily damaged, and it would take a serious effort and serious resources to rebuild... perhaps you can piont out the text that leads you to think that Sir Winston Churchill says he thinks that the bombing Campiagn was a waste of effort.

Even Churchill had his concerns after Dresden in a draft memo from March 28, 1945. After responses from people like the Chiefs of Staff and RAF Bomber Command the language was changed, but there still seems to be a questioning of the policy in his final memo of April 1, 1945.

Actually the memo was seen only by Churchills chief of staff, and not bomber command, The language was changed, but again it was not explained for what reasons as Gen Ismay comments or minutes are left out " leaving us to Assume".

And it does question the continuation of the bombing , but no where does it question the entire campaign.

[bk59]

BK59:

The museum in question was designed and built to display Canada's war history period. The good, Bad and ugly to lay it out as factual as possiable. It is not the musuem nor it's directing staff's job, nor right, to offer or place an opinion on a piece of history. It's main focus must be to layout each piece with just the facts.

Like the fact that there is a debate on this subject? (Whether or not you want to recognize the debate, it has been going on for some time amongst more than just a few overzealous historians.)

The layouts or exhibits may spark debates, by numerous groups, as they try to fill in the unanswered questions, or offer thier interputation on the events, but this function must be left to those whom view the displays not the museum or it's staff. This is how history gets rewritten. In this case the lobby group just wants the facts prsented not someones opinion that has not been proven as history or fact.

Has this lobby group gone through every panel in the museum and demanded that anything that might be an opinion instead of a fact be removed? History gets rewritten when groups change how history is presented for political reasons. Are you telling me that a veterans group is doing this because they think a museum panel was incorrect, or because they do not want the implication that they participated in something that some people (not all people) object to? What was the opinion they were objecting to? Did the panel say that the campaign was ineffective? Did it say that it was a war crime? Or did it say that there was a debate? These are very different questions.

It's easy to judge another without all the facts as Argus pionted out, it was a period of total war, and morality changes when man engages in war with very little rules. One must have all the facts, before one judges an entire generation for thier actions.

Perhaps you can explain what leasons man took out of WWII and this era of total war, and have we put any of those leasons into practice today. just a quick look and and i'd say no,not really, instead we continued on developing better arms, improving our Wpns of mass destruction, to the piont now where one wpn could kill more people with one detention than was killed in both World wars combined. Wars continue, millions still die.

Yes, wars continue. Does that mean we didn't learn anything? No. I would think that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 count as something that came about because of what happened in WWII. Not everyone may follow them, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

I think if you read your own links a few times the answer is in there. The time is end March beginning Apr, allieds are well inside germany, the war is very close to the end, in fact Germany surrendered all it's forces on the 7 May...Allied commanders are now thinking about rebuilding Europe, and Britian..and are concerned with doing excessive damage in Germany as that would take away resources required to rebuild Britian.

The question about Dresden was case in piont, the entire city was heavily damaged, and it would take a serious effort and serious resources to rebuild... perhaps you can piont out the text that leads you to think that Sir Winston Churchill says he thinks that the bombing Campiagn was a waste of effort.

The cost of rebuilding clearly became a factor near the end of the war, and was definitely one of the reasons to rethink how the bombing should be carried out. But I never said Churchill thought the entire campaign was a waste of effort. I said that "The fire bombing of Dresden led to a questioning of how the entire policy was being carried out." And that Churchill also questioned the policy after Dresden. Look at the line in the draft memo: "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing." He says that "the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." He talks of "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction." This language gets changed in the final version, and for understandable reasons. But clearly he had doubts about how the bombing was being carried out, and I don't think it's any coincidence that this issue of excessive damage just happened to come up after Dresden. Especially given that he cites Dresden. People have questioned the value & morality of this type of bombing since the bombing of Dresden happened. And that was really my only point since some people seem to think that only recently a few extremely liberal historians have taken issue with this type of bombing.

[Army Guy]

BK59:

Like the fact that there is a debate on this subject? (Whether or not you want to recognize the debate, it has been going on for some time amongst more than just a few overzealous historians.)

I have no problem with any debate on the topic, my problem is the debate was started by the musuem and thier actions of putting someones opinion on a piece of history. It's not the musuems place or function to question or comment on history but to display it with just facts.

It is the job and place of historians and other groups to comment or debate what they think happened, or was it right or wrong...

Has this lobby group gone through every panel in the museum and demanded that anything that might be an opinion instead of a fact be removed?

This is not the first time the legion has corrected history or the museum or even contributed to the museum.

History gets rewritten when groups change how history is presented for political reasons.

What polictical reasons does the legion have to have this changed. Maybe it's just trying to clear up what some would call slander of the campaign, and of those that took part in it, and the meaning of it all.

Are you telling me that a veterans group is doing this because they think a museum panel was incorrect, or because they do not want the implication that they participated in something that some people (not all people) object to?

Yes it is incorrect, Again it is not offering fact but someones opinon. I think most vets would say, it's not something they are proud of, but something that had to be done. And don't give a rats ass if some object to thier actions, but rather want it displayed as facts not opinon pieces.

What was the opinion they were objecting to?

But some veterans were adamant that the display effectively accuses them, and their dead wartime comrades, of committing war atrocities.

Did the panel say that the campaign was ineffective?

Yes, it questions the value of the entire campiagn

Did it say that it was a war crime?

Yes it questions the morality of the campiagn.

Or did it say that there was a debate?

It did say it was bitterly contested, but it does not say by whom, nor why.

The panel currently 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."

Accompanying photographs show dead German corpses in rubble-strewn streets.

Yes, wars continue. Does that mean we didn't learn anything? No. I would think that the Geneva Conventions of 1949 count as something that came about because of what happened in WWII. Not everyone may follow them, but these are exceptions, not the rule.

I think your reply says it all, the largest War on this planet, that involved most of the globe, killed millions upon millions and all we learned is we could sit down and create rules of engagement for all future wars. even with these rules in place a full 1/3 of the world did not agree to follow them.

As a pivot piont in mans history we should have been able to match that with a historical leasons learned , allowing man kind to live in a more peaceable enviroment. such is not the case, war has engulf more than a 1/3 of the planet ever since the end of WW II.

The fire bombing of Dresden led to a questioning of how the entire policy was being carried out." And that Churchill also questioned the policy after Dresden. Look at the line in the draft memo: "The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing." He says that "the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed." He talks of "mere acts of terror and wanton destruction." This language gets changed in the final version, and for understandable reasons. But clearly he had doubts about how the bombing was being carried out, and I don't think it's any coincidence that this issue of excessive damage just happened to come up after Dresden. Especially given that he cites Dresden.

Thats not what i get out of his memo, Churchill knows that the war is over, and is thinking ahead to when they will have to rebuild Germany, but most importantly England. The German army is all but defeated, and bombing german cities no long has the same effect nor benifit. hence why his request for a review.

"It seems to me at the moment has come when the question of bombing of german cities simply for the sake of increasing terror, through other pretexts, should be reviewed."

he states why he is concerned here, he's thinking of rebuilding England.

"Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land. we shall not, for instance, be able to get housing materials out of german for our own needs because some temporary provision would have to be made for the germans themselfs"

As for the destruction of dresden, at the time it was a valued military target as been proven here in other posts, a transportation hub, and safe haven. The military wanted it destroyed.

"The destruction of the dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of allied bombing. I am of the opinion that military objectives must henceforward be more strictly studied in our own interests rather than of the enemy"

He is not calling the dresden destruction bad,"this was not the first time a german city was fire bombed, and it was not the first time dresden was bombed either". He is stating that "in this time of the war", Englands needs must be put first, rather than concentrating on destroying the enemy. And the destruction of dresden did not accomplish that in his opinion

"The foreign secretary has spoken to me on this subject, and i feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives, such as oil and communications behind the immediate battle zone, rather than mere acts of terror and wanton destruction , however impresive"

Again, he wants the massive bombings to stop, as the bombing of civilians no longer effects the battle or war, he also wants to limit the damage done to Germany to ensure England gets her share of materials to rebuild.

You can't just pick out key sentences and base your opinion on that , you have to read the entire memo and then put it into context.