The Normandy campaign and the bombing of Caen 1944

Harry Thomas Ansell’s logbook showing daylight operation to Caen. b
Harry Thomas Ansell’s logbook showing daylight operation to Caen.

As well as the RAF 100 celebrations and flypast, this month includes the 74th anniversary of Operation Goodwood, part of the battle of Caen. Throughout July 1944, Bomber Command carried out numerous tactical operations in support of Allied troops in Normandy after D-Day, targeting transport networks and troop concentrations.

Northern and central Caen was badly damaged on 7 July 1944 by almost 500 aircraft attacking German troop positions north of the city, and on 18 July 1944 villages east of Caen were bombed by over 900 Bomber Command aircraft in support of Operation Goodwood. Seven aircraft were lost with 24 aircrew killed on this operation. Most of the French population had already left the city but several hundred of those who remained were killed and much of the city was destroyed.

Target photograph of Caen from the Margaret Hourigan collection. Taken on 18 July 1944 by Flight Lieutenant Mouat from 50 Squadron, RAF Skellingthorpe.
Target photograph of Caen from the Margaret Hourigan collection. Taken on 18 July 1944 by Flight Lieutenant Mouat from 50 Squadron, RAF Skellingthorpe.

Following the IBCC’s aims to promote remembrance, recognition, and reconciliation, the Digital Archive is recording and preserving stories and material about the bombing war from all perspectives. This includes those who flew, served on the ground or were bombed – on both sides of the conflict. We’d be very interested to hear from anyone who witnessed RAF bombing in Germany and occupied Europe. Please contact archive@internationalbcc.co.uk or call (+44) 01522 837707.

The IBCC narrative voice (II): what’s in a quote?

Maintaining the clarity of our distinctive IBCC narrative voice has not been without its challenges within the partnership tasked with delivering the entire, ambitious project. Tensions in perspective have mostly been turned to highly creative use. Every now and then, however, challenges have been thrown up that have threatened to disrupt a singular voice.

For example, our external partner decided to name the visitor centre the Chadwick Centre, after the designer of the Lancaster bomber. This seemed from our perspective in the partnership to be rather too ‘top down’, to focus too heavily on hardware not people, and to be too Lincolnshire-specific. (There are faultlines in the Bomber Command memorialisation community, split along bomber Groups and aircraft flown.) Out of respect we worked with it. We had interviewed Roy Chadwick’s daughter for the archive and she is included in the exhibition, speaking of her father. We included stories and images of crews who flew a variety of aircraft, and made efforts at wide geographical coverage. We were also mindful that all Bomber Command aircraft meant only one thing to those on the ground in occupied Europe: death and destruction.[1]

And now, on the eve of opening, the tone of our narrative voice has been altered by additions to the entrance area of the Chadwick Centre, without involving the exhibition/archive team. It is important to this explanation to note that the only area of the site that is behind a paywall is the exhibition itself. All other areas can be freely accessed. One anticipates that many more visitors will move through the ‘free’ than the ‘paid’ spaces.

As one walks into the Chadwick Centre, one is greeted by a large quote on the wall by Arthur Harris, not only chief of Bomber Command but even today considered one of the most controversial figures in the Allied military command structure. Even (or especially) veterans and their families remain divided over his role and legacy, as testified in many of the interviews we have collected. Here, immediately, is a provocation, a call to an official victor narrative. The quote is about Roy Chadwick, a bust of whom (donated by his family) is positioned below it.

6 The bust of Roy Chadwick and the quote by Harris

The bust of Roy Chadwick and the quote by Harris.

In another area of the entrance – harder to see until one is leaving – is the fifth verse of Laurence Binyon’s poem, For the Fallen.

They mingle not with their laughing comrades again; They sit no more at familiar tables of home; They have no lot in our labour of the day-time; They sleep beyond England’s foam

It was written in 1914, a few weeks into the First World War. The fourth verse, beginning ‘They shall not grow old, as we that are left grow old’, is now commonly associated with British remembrance and the poppy.[2] In the verse quoted, it is of interest that Binyon refers to ‘England’, not even Britain, nor its allies, so a contested issue within the victor narrative is introduced, compounding the implications for our wider interpretive scheme.

The overall impression now created in the entrance area is that the IBCC has not moved beyond a rather outworn, binary us/them perspective on the bombing war. (The decorative scheme in the café does nothing to disrupt such an impression, but that may be extending our argument too far.)

Another potential challenge is the ‘Knight of the Skies’. In October 2017, this sculpture was donated to the IBCC by a family with close connections to Bomber Command and who have lent significant support to the IBCC. The knight was one of 36 sponsored sculptures in Lincoln city centre’s Knights’ Trail over the previous summer.[3] Each sculpture was distinctively themed and painted by a different artist. The ‘Knight of the Skies’ wears flying gear and holds the IBCC spire as a sword above Lincoln cathedral and fields of poppies. On its side, a Lancaster and its crew stand beneath a shield bearing the Bomber Command motto, ‘STRIKE HARD STRIKE SURE’.  The last British survivor of the Dams Raids, Johnny Johnson, has autographed the knight. It represents a heroic view of those who flew in RAF Bomber Command.

5 Knight of the skies

The Knight of the Skies

The knight has been displayed in the Remembering Bomber Command gallery, which is entirely appropriate. This is, after all, one local form of remembering that contains multiple personal stories, not only connected to the war but to the IBCC.

At issue for the interpretation is its current location, presiding over the entrance area as visitors approach from the carpark. If one does not intend viewing the exhibition, it is the only bit of the exhibition one gets for free.

What we have for the opening of this prestigious new development in Lincoln, then, is not one but two voices that sit awkwardly side by side, a reminder of the heritage dissonance that has long been identified as one of the dangers of mobilising an unruly past for contemporary purposes, such as commemoration and place-making.[4] We wish it were not so and that the quotes at least could be replaced. We have concerns about how the Centre may be portrayed online and how that may shape the decision to visit (or not) among those who are not our natural/predicted audience – although we want them to be impressed, too.

This reflection sums up our views as we let go of our interpretive work at the Centre and give over to visitors to interact with the interpretation, create their own experiences and take away their own memories.

Dan Ellin, Heather Hughes and Alessandro Pesaro

 

[1] In recent years there have been a number of landmark studies on this theme, offering very different perspectives to those produced in the Cold War context. See for example Richard Overy, The Bombing War, Europe 1939-1945. Allen Lane, London, 2013; Dietmar Süss, Death From the Skies: How the British and Germans Survived Bombing in World War II, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2014; Jörg Friedrich, The Fire: The Bombing of Germany 1940-1945. Columbia University Press, New York, 2006.

[2] For the issues associated with poppy remembrance, see Maggie Andrews, ‘Poppies, Tommies and remembrance: commemoration is always contested’. In Soundings, Vol. 58, 2014, pp 98-109.

[3] http://www.knightstrail.com/  accessed 31.12.2017.

[4] See J. E. Tunbridge and G. J. Ashworth, Dissonant Heritage: The Management of the Past as a Resource in Conflict. John Wiley, Chichester, 1996.

The IBCC narrative voice (I): what is reconciliation?

In September 2017, Dan Ellin posted an account of the provenance and progress of the IBCC exhibition. In the light of the exhibition now being completed, we reflect further in a two-part post on our approach to interpretation, particularly the difficulties in dealing with difficult heritage.

Remembering the bombing war still generates strong and conflicting opinions and getting the tone right for exhibitions about Bomber Command is notoriously hard. Even trying to explain why this is the case tends to generate more heat than light.

When the University of Lincoln became involved in the memorial to RAF Bomber Command in 2013, we believed that a capacious and sensitive handling would go a long way towards promoting an innovative and inclusive approach to this contested issue. Three things should be noted here. Firstly, by this stage, many museums and heritage attractions dealing in war had come round to the view that their holdings represented ‘difficult heritage’ and were actively trying to engage discussion as to how to deal with this; perhaps the National Army Museum in London was the leading example in the UK.[1]

1 IBCC entrance at night

The International Bomber Command Centre

Secondly, we were aware of two Canadian controversies regarding the bombing war. In the early 1990s, a three-part TV documentary, The Valour and the Horror, was aired; the second part, ‘Death by Moonlight’ dealt with the bombing of Germany.  This unleashed vigorous, not to say vitriolic, public debate, leading to Senate hearings.[2]  Then in 2006, the Canadian War Museum was engulfed in controversy over the wording of a small amount of exhibition text on the bombing war. Veterans’ groups demanded it be rewritten. Once again this reached the Canadian parliament. The CWM were forced to do so, even though a panel set up to adjudicate the matter found the original wording to be historically accurate.[3]

Thirdly, we felt that there was an opportunity in Lincolnshire to rise above regional commemoration and to embrace a truly international perspective in our approach to the memory of Bomber Command. This meant not only acknowledging the remarkable internationalism of those who served in the RAF and were posted to the Command, but also the very far-reaching consequences of bombing both friend and foe in mainland Europe, and the many complexities that the bombing war continues to reveal. In this sense, we felt that the University was playing the sort of role that such an institution ought to play: opening up debate, leveraging resources, connecting to contemporary trends.

A further factor came into play that fitted well into our attempts to be inclusive. The land on which the IBCC has been built belongs to an Oxford college, whose head required, in return for a long-term lease, that we gave due consideration to the German perspective of the bombing war.

Taking all such factors into account, and following the advice to us by one of the leading museum directors in the UK to ‘have a brave story and stick to it’, we devised an interpretation plan. This plan, and the exhibition to which it has given rise, were discussed from inception to the final sign-off of content with all the people who were a part of this project – and many others besides.

The plan committed to a narrative voice that focused on the people’s bombing war (oral testimony and personal memorabilia are the basis of the archive on which the exhibition is based); presented an ‘orchestra of voices’ to include those caught up in the bombing war in the air, on the ground and on both sides of the conflict, as well as those affected by the legacy of the actions of Bomber Command; acknowledged that pain and suffering were shared; and raised questions about the complexity of the bombing war, rather than delivering judgement.[4]

4 Home Fronts

Telephone handsets are one way the orchestra of voices is delivered. (IBCC)

The IBCC embraces three values that also underpin that interpretation plan: recognition, remembrance and reconciliation (http://internationalbcc.co.uk/about-ibcc/). The first two values are not so difficult to define. Recognition relates to veterans, whose role has been downplayed because of ongoing discomfort in our society about the morality of bombing. Remembrance includes the hundreds of thousands who were killed, on both sides of the war. Reconciliation has always been the most challenging. It requires an acknowledgment that the suffering endured through a brutal conflict was shared and thus constitutes a basis for mutual understanding and empathy. It is also about acknowledging that not everything done by the winners of the war was just or right. Reconciliation is not about triumphalism, heroism and victimhood; it is about our common humanity. This in turn enables the possibility an open and frank dialogue about the bombing war, which remains a difficult and painful subject, capable of arousing strong emotion on all sides.

Dan Ellin, Heather Hughes and Alessandro Pesaro

 

[1] http://advisor.museumsandheritage.com/features/national-army-museum-reopens-following-three-year-23m-development/ accessed 15.01.2018.

[2] See Erwin Warkentin, ‘Death by Moonlight: a Canadian debate over guilt, grief and remembering the Hamburg raids’. In Wilfried Wilms and William Rasch (eds) Bombs Away! Representing the Air War over Europe and Japan. Amsterdam, Rodopi, 2006, pp. 249-264. Bercuson, D. J. and Wise, S. F. (eds.) The Valour and the Horror Revisited, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1994.

[3] There are several accounts of this incident; see for example David Dean, ‘Museums as conflict zones: the Canadian War Museum and Bomber Command’. Museum and Society Vol. 7, No. 1, 2009, pp.1-15.

Bercuson, D. “The Canadian War Museum and Bomber Command My Perspective” Canadian Military History, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2011, pp.55-62. Bothwell, R. Hansen, R. and Macmillan, M. ‘Controversy, commemoration, and capitulation: the Canadian War Museum and Bomber Command’ Queen’s Quarterly, Vol. 115, No. 3, 2008, pp.367-387.

[4] There were other factors to consider, as well, besides the content, including appropriate means of delivery. For a discussion of the issues, see for example Mad Djaugbjerg, ‘Paying with fire: struggling with ‘experience’ and ‘play’ in war tourism’, Museum and Society Vol. 9, No. 1, 2011, pp. 17-33.

Bomber Command nose art

One of the archive team has recently finished building a 1/32 scale model Lancaster. A short time ago, we had to choose which aircraft it was to represent. Without giving it much thought we asked on social media for suggestions, made a short list and posted an opinion poll. With almost 50 percent of the votes, ‘Fair Fighters Revenge’ was chosen for the model.[1]

1 The IBCC model Lancaster

Some aircraft were known only by their squadron codes and individual letter, others were given their own character and painted with ‘nose art.’ The number of operations each aircraft completed was often recorded by painting a small bomb underneath the cockpit. Operations to Italy were sometimes symbolised by the depiction of an ice-cream cone. Some aircraft were also decorated with nose art; they were given a name or a mascot. As a form of folk art’, some aircraft were painted with comical cartoons, risqué pin ups or quotes.[2] The Canadian War Museum displays a collection of nose art from Halifax aircraft,[3] and there are several books on the topic.[4] The Lancaster S-Sugar, currently at Hendon is decorated with a quote from Herman Goering “No enemy plane will fly over the Reich Territory.” The RAF has regularly chosen cartoons to be painted on the nose of the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight Lancaster. The BBMF Lancaster has previously been ‘The Phantom of the Ruhr’, ‘Johnny Walker’ and Mickey the Moocher.’ In 2014 it was painted as ‘Thumper’ and in 2017 became ‘Leader.’

‘Thumper', the Avro Lancaster Mk III undergoing maintenance in the BBMF hangar at RAF Coningsby.

Thumper at the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight. (SAC Megan Woodhouse)

The aircraft our poll chose, Lancaster ME812, ‘Fair Fighter’s Revenge’, completed over 100 operations with 166 and 153 squadrons. Its nose art shows a red-haired woman in a short red dress flexing a sword. At a recent meeting some of the team were uncomfortable with the choice, one mentioned the figure on the nose art looked like ‘Miss Whiplash’. During the war, ‘pin ups’ by artists such as Alberto Vargas, George Petty and David Wright influenced the artwork on many bomber aircraft. Based on Norman Pett’s risqué character ‘Jane’ from the Daily Mirror, the Lancaster at the Lincolnshire Heritage Aviation Centre at East Kirkby has been ‘Just Jane’ since the 1990s. She is depicted wearing swimwear and sitting on a rather phallic looking bomb.

3 Just Jane

Just Jane (Alan Wilson)

Such nose art can only properly be understood and explained in the context of the largely masculine environment of a 1940s wartime bomber station. Today, such objectification of women and the use of offensive national stereotypes are problematic and may cause offense, but so can almost every other aspect of the history of Bomber Command. Its history is difficult heritage, and remembering the bombing war continues to expose a barrage of conflicting opinions, positions and agendas. For some people, Lancaster bombers commemorate the aircrew killed flying in Bomber Command, but for many others in Germany, Italy and France they represent death and destruction, whatever is painted on them.

 

 

[1] You can follow the build at: http://ibccdigitalarchivelancbd.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/

[2] Lane, J. ‘Nose Art’ Art Then and Now (2006) http://art-now-and-then.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/nose-art.html accessed 08.11.2017

[3] The Collection of Original Halifax Nose Art Currently on Display at the Canadian War Museum http://www.bombercommandmuseum.ca/noseartcwm.html accessed 08.11.2017

[4] See for example: Wood, J, Aircraft Nose Art, (Salamander, 1997). Simonsen, C. RAF and RCAF Nose Art in World War II (Hikoki, 2000). Valant, G. Vintage Aircraft Nose Art, (Motorbooks, 2001).

 

 

The Exhibition Audio–Visuals and Interactives

Heather Hughes, Dan Ellin and Nicky Barr from the IBCC recently met with people from Centre Screen and Redman Design at a studio in Manchester to see how the exhibition’s interactive and audio-visual elements are progressing.

Members of the IBCC, Redman Design and Centre Screen exhibition design team.

Members of the IBCC, Redman Design and Centre Screen exhibition design team.

Centre Screen showed us their soundscapes and immersives, the films to introduce the exhibition, and the interactive ‘Bomber Crew Challenge.’ It was wonderful to see ideas we have been discussing and researching for so long begin to take shape. The studio was large enough to mock up the Chadwick Centre’s three exhibition spaces, so for the first time we could see and hear the interactives and audio visuals almost as they will be.

It was especially pleasing to see our animated map of the bombing war in Europe on a seven metre screen, but the highlight of the day was testing the ‘Bomber Crew Challenge’. Unfortunately when they took part in the challenge, Heather and Dan’s operations ended with their aircraft ditching in off the coast of Norfolk.

Meanwhile, work on other parts of the exhibition continues. The team are choosing and editing clips from the IBCC’s collection of oral history interviews for the exhibition’s ‘Orchestra of Voices’, and writing exhibition content that will be accessed by visitors through an APP or on the centre’s handheld tablets.

Dan Ellin, IBCC Archive and Exhibition Curator