The Controversy Over Strategic Bombing

Hello everyone, on behalf of the strategic bombing group, I'd like to apologize for the tardiness of our post, but such is life once reading week commences, isn't it? In any event, here is a sampling of the visual representations that we covered during our presentation, in addition to some links to articles dealing with the controversy at the war museum that you might find interesting.

One thing that we may not have mentioned in our presentation was our general feeling over the course of the project that strategic bombing is actually UNDER-represented when compared with some of the other representations that we saw in other presentations. The lack of representations could be due to the controversy that tends to accompany any new attempt to showcase the effects of bombing or the stories of the bombers themselves, but the fact remains that information was relatively hard to come by unless it dealt with the controversies.

But without further ado, some historical representations:

Representation on Film
Below are two film clips, both from the Dresden miniseries that we discussed in class. The miniseries was originally produced in German but was then dubbed in English and has been very well-received by Canadian audiences, unlike the Canadian-made The Valour and the Horror. The latter incited a great deal of controversy about the portrayal of Bomber Command and of the actions of the individual bombers, with the end result that the CBC pulled the program and it remains exceedingly difficult to find in digital format.





Representation in Literature
Our presentation also covered the representation of strategic bombing in literature, specifically in Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-Five, which was a notable example of how historical events can be conveyed through a fictitious literary medium. Vonnegut himself was on the ground during bombing raids, and thus experienced first-hand the kind of destruction that the bombers could wreak on German cities and towns.

Slaughterhouse-Five is also an example of metafiction, which is a literary genre that self-consciously addresses the devices of fiction and draws attention to its own status as an artifact or element of fiction, which in the particular case of Slaughterhouse-Five means that Vonnegut wove parts of other books that deal with strategic bombing into his narrative. Through his use of the metafictional approach to the novel, Vonnegut is able to pose questions to his reader about the morality of strategic bombing, while simultaneously blurring the lines between the "good guy" and the "bad guy," as is demonstrated in the scene when a blind German innkeeper takes in American prisoners of war and bids them goodnight saying: "Goodnight Americans... sleep well" (Vonnegut, Slaughterhouse-Five, (Dial Press, 1969), p. 232)

The historical representation of strategic bombing in literature provides the public with a different interpretation of strategic bombing. Unlike many other representations, fiction does not profess a sense of historical accuracy, and as a result the author’s portrayal of the past is less constricted by the need for historical objectivity. Vonnegut’s experiences as a prisoner of war in Dresden during the Allied bombing provided a factual basis for the novel. For example, the novel opens stating, “All this happened, more or less. The war parts, anyway, are pretty much true.” (Vonnegut, p. 12) While Vonnegut grounds his novel in fact, he does not lay any claim to historical accuracy, unlike the documentary series, The Valour and the Horror. As a result, Slaughterhouse-Five was not subject to public criticism because Vonnegut never stated that his portrayal of the events in Dresden during the bombing were in fact totally accurate.

Controversy at the Canadian War Museum
The historical representation of strategic bombing in the context of Canadian museums is best examined through analysis of the controversy that erupted at the Canadian War Museum in the winter of 2006-2007 over the wording on a particular panel about the actions of Bomber Command during the Second World War. The controversy over the panel entitled "An Enduring Controversy" largely mimicked that which had emerged over The Valour and the Horror over a decade earlier, with the veterans pitting themselves against historians and a national institution. The result was also quite similar, with the CWM eventually withdrawing the panel and replacing it with one that many academic observers have noted is far longer and more vague than the original, and ironically “does what the veterans claimed the original did: while not historically inaccurate, it provides a false and misleading impression of the RAF’s (and therefore the RCAF’s) role in the bombing war. Equally regrettably, the decision sets a terrible precedent.”

Though there are dozens of newspaper articles that detail the controversy over the panel, one of the most informative pieces that I read in preparation for the presentation was a piece published in Queen's Quarterly by a group of historians, some of whom were actually involved in the process to review the panel itself. A link to the article can be found here.

While the controversy is interesting in and of itself, more intriguing are the questions that it raises for discussion:

1. Should a third-party group, like the veterans, have the right to dictate what is an accurate and appropriate historical representation of an aspect of war?
2. How does having a "personal stake" in a historical representation potentially skew an individual's response to that representation; was that the case with the veterans?
3. The Senate Subcommittee noted that the controversy over the panel illustrated the need for continual research and re-thinking of past events in order to prevent misinterpretation and to remain relevant, but where should the line be drawn between continual research and catering to the whims of special interest groups whenever controversy arises?

Representation in Art

This is the caricature from the Vancouver Sun which dealt specifically with the issues surrounding The Valour and the Horror. Particularly interesting is the comment on how the NFB was modifying "another generation's reality," thoughts? Do you think this is a fair assessment of the intentions of the documentary? Why use a caricature to express these sentiments? Do you think a caricature is directed towards a specific audience? Is the message accessible to everyone? Do you think they wanted it to be?

The painting was done in 1947 by Flight Lieutenant Paul Alexander Goranson and depicts a bombing campaign in San Giusto, Pisa in which Canadians participated. The strategic bombing campaigns executed in the Second World War are highly controversial and the War Museum itself faced criticism with regards to how strategic bombing was being displayed. It is interesting that the painting chosen to hang in the display centered around strategic bombing is one depicting an attack that few have heard of. Why would this painting be used by the Museum to portray the part Canadians played in strategic bombing? Does this painting capture the essence of strategic bombing?

Artist Geoff Butler creates paintings that depict general themes of warfare, doing so in a manner that takes the specificities of war out of the picture. In Butler’s book The Art of War, Painting it Out of the Picture, the general theme of strategic bombing is addressed through a picture entitled All In A Days Work. The bowl is falling on cookies; it is not a bomb being dropped on people, yet the destruction the bowl creates is real. The cookies are shattered and broken to bits, just as bombs shatter people. What is fascinating and horrifying about the piece are the smiley faces worn by the gingerbread men—they are all so similar and ordinary, not ugly or menacing. They cannot possibly be an enemy target. Perhaps the most striking aspect of the piece is that there are no sides portrayed. This is a statement piece where all who look at it are placed on the same level. Does this picture represent strategic bombing to you? Is Butler successful in taking the specifics of war out of strategic bombing? Does this picture make you feel more connected to, or detached from the aspects of strategic bombing?

Mexican artist Marcos Ramirez was asked to commission a piece of art for an exhibit called Project Reading, which was to be showcased in Reading, Pennsylvania in 2003. Ramirez decided to create a piece that dealt with strategic bombing and, in particular, how much of a role it played in American strategy and policy. The piece was to resemble a road sign and cities that had been strategically bombed by, or with the assistance of, American forces were listed on it along with how far each city was from Reading, Pennsylvania and finally the year in which the city was bombed. What does this piece make you think of? Without the above explanation would you know what it was meant to represent? Is there something to be said for having it censored?

Thanks for listening/reading!