Conference kaosws::canada

    Very poignant, and timely.  On Wednesday, 10 August the Dutch
    television series "De Zomer van '45" (The Summer of '45) started on
    CBC.  It's an 8-part series from 10PM to 11 PM.  The series continues
    on 17 August and then takes a 'forced hiatus' until 7 September, due to
    the Commonwealth Games.
    
    The series is based on the novel (based on actual and personal events)
    "The Chidren of the Liberation" by Olga Rains (who married a Canadian
    serviceman and moved from Holland to Canada).
    
    The show had a very popular run in Europe, to the extent that the two
    principle stars would be approched in the streets as "Jim and Anna",
    their role names.  The two stars are David Palfy from Vancouver known
    for his roles in Canadian-made US shows such as "21 Jump Street", "The
    Commish", and a long soliloquy in the movie "Full Metal Jacket"; the
    Dutch star is well known in Europe, Will van Kralingen (as Anna). 
    Apparently, the two stars are now living together in The Hague.  David
    has made his first Dutch language television series recently.  The
    couple have also stayed at David's digs in Vancouver.
    
    Now, about the series.  It starts with the Canadian troops liberating
    Holland and the 'interaction' between the Canadians and the Dutch
    girls.  Apparently, the girls were enthralled to see men of their own
    age after such a long period during the German occupation.  Needless to
    say, relations were made.
    
    I found the first episode good enough to see again, and I'll be
    watching the entire series.
    
    BTW Holland is planning for a big celebration in 1995 to commemorate
    the liberation by the Canadians.
    
    Cheers,
    
    Pat

    UK television recently ran the three part Canadian documentary "THE
    VALOUR AND THE HORROR, which I think was a National Film Board of
    Canada production.
    
    I suspect this was probably shown on Canadian TV sometime ago.  I'd be
    interested to hear what the reaction to it was from anyone who saw it?
    
    here, it was pretty mixed - it certainly emphasized the waste of life
    and the poor decision making which led to thousands of Canadian deaths
    in WWII.  It was certainly anti-British, but more particularly seemed
    to question why Canada was there in the first place given the Canadia
    losses in Hong Kong, in the invasion of France and in Canadian Air
    crews.
    
    I must admit being a Canuck in England it let me with a bad taste - of
    course war is terrible and wasteful, but Canada made a major
    contribution and I believe it's purpose and reason for being involved
    was very clear - to beat the Imperial Japanese and Nazi fascists.
    
    The documentary didn't demonstrate enough the successes achieved by
    Canadian forces in the war, only the extent of it's dead, and it's
    anti-British flavour felt unjustified.
    
    Did anyone else see it?
    
    C
    

    The documentary referenced in the last note got lots of people upset
    here in Canada, primarily veterans groups.  I saw most of it and
    thought it an interesting perspective on Canada in WWII.
    
    

    
    I watched parts of it.  Some of their material was distorted.*  It was
    selective, and parts were pure B.S.  It judged battles with hindsight 
    from information that wasn't available at the time.  It looked for all
    the screwups, ignored the many successes.  
    
    
    It had a very similiar flavour to the mini-series "Dieppe", also a major
    CBC project.  The soldiers were all good and naive, the senior
    commanders were almost all uncaring idiots, and everybody died for nothing.
    No contribution to winning the war.
    
    
    This show wouldn't have been made anywhere but here, and WE paid for
    it.  What other country trashes *all* their veterans.
    
    
    The rest of my comments can't be put on the net.
    
    
    
    * i.e the comments on the Dam-Busters raid.  They were wrong, and the
    bibliography in their book did not list *any* of the books on it.  If
    they had read the current best source they wouldn't have made the
    comments the did.  Go read their bibliography.  (They have a hard back book
    out with the same title).
    
    
    Marshall 
    

    As I remember it, the "questioning" was more around why we let other
    countries commanders lead our troops to near certain death. Hong Kong
    and Dieppe (SP?) come to mind. No one wants to be considered cannon
    fodder. The anti-British was directed towards the boobs they had as
    commanders, not the general population,  or the country.
    
     As I remember that is....
    
    							Derek.

    I saw very little of "The Valour and the Horror".  In the brief bits I
    saw, they did seem to be stressing the "horror".  From what I've seen
    of the resulting controversy in the papers, etc., they got most of the
    historical facts right, but displayed no sympathy for commanders who
    made mistakes trying to do the right thing in the midst of the "fog of
    war."
    
    Not long ago I saw a tv documentary on "Bomber" Harris, made in Britain
    in the early '60s.  The tone was positive, painting him as a dedicated
    & determined commander, but I was appalled by the guy and what he did.
    
    Last week I read "Bloody Victory", a popular book by Jack Granatstein
    and Desmond Morton on the D-Day campaign.  They described the Verriere
    Ridge episode, in which the Black Watch of Canada were mown down, in sober 
    terms.  There's a paragraph in which they mention the McKennas and "The
    Valour and the Horror" pretty critically, based ontheir treatment of
    this incident & others.  It's a good book, with some good photos, which
    doesn't shrink from criticising mistakes -- but which isn't a
    semi-hysterical expose of them either.  Personally, I find this tone
    more appropriate.
    
    -Stephen
    
    

    I guess WWII was the last "good war".  Critical looks that question   
    popular perceptions of the "good war" are not surprising criticized.
           
    Most of the criticism of the series came from the depiction of Bomber   
    Harris, who according to the series had a stated strategy of killing   
    German civilians.  Much outrage .... well ok sending a thousand 
    bombers over a city at night (e.g. Hamburg, Dresden) to blanket a huge   
    geographic area is likely to kill a few German civilians.  Civilians
    work in factories, factories produce war materials.  Hence they are
    just as valid a target in total war as the soldiers at the front. 
    However, a mindset that says killing civilians is bad, killing
    soldiers (civilians in different clothes) is ok does not allow
    governments to state that killing civilians is government policy
    (only the bad guys do that... right?).  
    
    I don't see this as a criticism of Bomber Command policies, but rather
    as stating the obvious unwritten policy.

    
    re.-.1
    
    Unfortunately the discussion around "The Valour and the Horror"
    became very emotional around Bomber Command and Harris, and whether
    or not they targeted women and children in a terror campaign.
    
    On this issue the issue is real, was not a single blunder but a
    deliberate strategic direction, that was extensively argued at the time.  
    They (the producers) might have concentrated on this issue and examined 
    both sides.  
    
    The result, though, is that surviving aircrew can't live with the
    possibility that it was a) deliberate terror or b) didn't really 
    contribute much to the end of the war, without destroying their own
    peace of mind and the memories of the thousands of aircrew that went
    down.  Hence the reaction.  If I put myself in their shoes I think I
    would have real trouble too.  Particularly if the memories alone
    were horrendous, let alone without a Vietnam type reaction from
    people those views came a few minutes in front of a TV.  
    
    
    I tend to agree with you about "Bomber" Harris.  I read recently how at 
    one stage he reassured his men by indicating that the decisions were
    his, not anyone else's, and he would take the consequences to his
    grave and beyond.  There were far too many graves for testing his
    theory.
    
    
    Maybe we should take this to HISTORY or DEFENCE ISSUES.  Kind
    of serious for this file.
    
    
    Marshall  

    
    Oops, my -.1 refers to .6
    
    

The trouble with looking back at this kind of thing is that you are
guaranteed to offend someone ... the people who fought ... the innocent ...
the guilty.  I don't think that there is any way one can look back and
be totally balanced, without the result being pure boring! 

While some of the bombing missions over Germany may have been to strike
terror, the Allied forces were not alone in this approach.  Germany
sent many many unguided missiles into England, striking terror by wondering
when the flying bomb's fuel would run out and fall from the sky.  The
people for launching these were protected from the horror by not seeing
the immediate results of their actions.

Stuart

    
    It's not just offending someone, many veterans suppress the memories 
    completely, and cannot and will not talk about them.  I think some of
    reaction is because they cannot bear to reopen the feelings again.
    
    
    Recently at my parents the subject of the D-Day specials came up.  My
    step-son asked my dad what it was like there.  My father's reaction was to 
    cut of any discussion rather abruptly.  I hadn't realized just how deep it 
    was buried.   One of the better recent D-Day specials was narrated by the
    actor Charles Durning.  He read the script well, never enjecting
    personal comments.   What he didn't say was that he was there, on Omaha
    Beach, as a 17 year old.  The TV people asked him for his personal 
    comments for one of the background articles.  He was pretty abrupt as
    well. 
    
    Unfortuately people get so little history, and what they do get is off
    the tube, usually through Hollywood.  For most people,
    the Mckeenas will have have the last say.
    
    
    
    Marshall
    
      
    
    

Indeed true ... by offend, I did actually mean this kind of behaviour too.

My father was on the Murmansk run ... but rarely would talk about it ...
He has only just applied for his medals from the Merchant Marine.  Although
it was not a disaster like the invasions, it was still one of the most
scary things in life for an underaged kid who'd forged his father's
signature to get into the Merchant Marine!

It is always a tough balance to walk in war documentaries to report
accurately, and not villify and not glorify.  For those who served, often
to survive the harshness, to not glorify what happened is tantamount to
villifying.

Stuart

    Ya'll stop complaining...afterall you could have a leader like Bill
    Clinton thumbing his nose up at the military then parade himself at
    veterans events for photo ops...

    Yes, and I didn't notice anyone demeaning the memory of the fallen by
    using them to take partisan political cheap shots, either...
    
    -Stephen

    I don't what all the hue and cry is about!  Don't you folks realize
    that history is being re-written and revised according to new (today's)
    standards.  It doesn't matter what the actual circumstances, knowledge,
    morals, etc. of the day were.  All that matters now is that history be
    viewed from the new and politically correct perspective.  The truth
    does not matter!
    
    Garry

>                 -< Applying 1994 "standards" to the past... >-
>

Good point Gary ... but the interesting thing is that a lot of the things
that produced the human cry over these programs villifying the terrorist
like actions are still done today ...  our weapons are just a little more
sophisticated.  Iraqi scud missiles, IRA car bombs ....

As much as anything it is an exercise with 20/25 hindsight, some enlightenment
but the same barbarous animal instincts.

Stuart