CSC

Occupy Europe Cartoon Misses the Point

2011-10-31T21:51:00.005-06:00

The cartoon above from a Halifax newspaper has been making the rounds via social media, and I have to confess, I'm not sure I understand it at all. I think I get the intent of the cartoonist - he means to point out that the "greatest generation" (Tom Brokaw's phrase for the generation of young men and women who faced the trials of the Second World War) put themselves through peril while the generation of today has something more of a sense of entitlement. Ironically, I think, we tell ourselves every Remembrance Day that those veterans were sacrificing for a better world - in other words, the ability to pamper ourselves with that same sense of entitlement the cartoon, I think, is lampooning.

The wording in the speech bubble is significant. As a published author, and a graduate holding a Bachelor's Degree in Communications Studies, I've always felt that words mean things. It's important to note that the Germans - some call them the Nazis, but there are distinctions to be made - occupied Europe for several years. The Italians, Vichy French and other collaborators, willing and not so, aided them. But the Germans were the main enemies we faced, and they occupied Europe in a most villainous fashion, murdering in cold blood 10 to 12 million civilians, with the aid of local collaborators, including a generally accepted figure of six million Jews in the Holocaust.

Canadians did occupy parts of Europe as well; we certainly had soldiers up and down the Lines of Communication from the beaches in Normandy all the way to the front during the course of the Northwest Europe campaign, and ditto the gruelling campaign in Italy. Terry Copp's evocatively named MAPLE LEAF ROUTE series of books reminds us of this; this "occupation" was fleeting, and benign. Slightly less benign were the activities of the Canadian Army Occupation Force, which was a division-sized entity formed in Europe in 1945. 1 They remained for a year, on German soil, and was in the truest sense of the word a military "occupation." There had been a composite Canadian unit in Berlin briefly as well.

Canadian forces remained in Europe for decades as partners in the NATO alliance, coming to be good friends to the West Germans, and not so good friends to their former allies, the Soviet Union.

The word "occupied" itself is harmless; a soldier can occupy a place in time and space, and its use in a sentence is of no great import by itself. I don't get that sense from the cartoon. Political cartoons by definition are drawn, and captioned, with emphasis and deliberation. For that reason, I find the wording awkwardly done. "Occupation" in the sense implied here is a word associated at first blush with our enemies; Canadians went to Europe to liberate and free from oppression. That Canadians did occupy Europe is a historical fact; to have a cartoon veteran proclaim it, as the only line in a political cartoon seems out of character with what our war effort was truly about. The occupation was the last necessary act of a gruelling war forced on the democracies by fascist dictatorships. It seems disappointing to see it used as a punch-line, rubbed in the face of the youth whose freedoms were purchased by the sacrifice of those who never grew old enough to be satirized as old men with medals and canes.

The cartoon has clearly spoken to many people; it's unfortunate it has become a clarion call for a wide variety of viewpoints, such as the reintroduction of conscription. Those kinds of comments further betray knowledge of basic historical facts; drafting unwilling soldiers simply dilutes the quality of the soldiery. Canada saw it first-hand when it sent a brigade group to the Aleutians to defend North American soil from the Japanese. A number of desertions from among the unwilling took place.2 Other unhappy events regarding the "Zombies" - the home defence conscripts who refused to volunteer for overseas service - are dutifully recorded in the Army's official histories.

I record here no opinion one way or another with regards to the "Occupy _____" movements. Canada's war record in 1939-1945 speaks for itself. I see no reason to compare the two, and am puzzled why a political cartoonist should choose to do so either. It seems like a cheap stunt. The Second World War was an awesome national - and international - imperative. I get the impression the cartoonist would like to suggest that the Occupy movement does not meet the same standard. By mentioning the two in the same breath, he may have done more harm than good in giving the latter more attention than he may have wished, and in the process, distorting the historical record with regards to the former.

Notes

Stacey C.P. The Canadian Army 1939-1945 (Queen's Printer, Ottawa, ON, 1948) pp. 323-324
Stacey C.P. Official History of the Canadian Army in the Second World War Volume I: Six Years of War: The Army in Canada, Britain and the Pacific (Queen's Printer, Ottawa, ON, 1956) Ibid, p.500

Canadian Soldiers' Experience as a Template for the Future

2010-11-26T20:43:00.007-07:00

I've started two "blogs" now on different topics while insisting that I am against the concept in principle. I suppose it is time that I admit that the concept has sufficiently grown on me; when done well, they can be a unique form of educational and entertaining information. Done poorly, of course, we don't need to describe what they amount to - and it goes without much elucidation that the worth of these things are in the eyes of the beholders.

The aim of the main site - also linked to on this page, at right - has been to provide a historical perspective on Canadian soldiers of the 20th Century. I've kept discussion on the forum to within the constraints of those boundaries in order to avoid discussions of a more controversial nature, partially, and also because I didn't feel the format matched those kinds of discussions. Perhaps this format would better facilitate more "current" discussions. We shall see.

That conscious decision not to permit current topics of conversation on the discussion forum has not changed; it was made because my perception of the useful level of discourse arising from such discussions was low. Monte Solberg discussed (on November 22nd, in the Sun) the growing tendency of website commentary towards the darker end of the spectrum:

But it pains me to note that most of the comments on most websites most of the time are comprised of conspiracy theories, sweeping generalizations, random thoughts and ugly venom.

He was speaking about news websites, but his comments apply equally to much political commentary regardless of the type of website.

Nonetheless, I've come to think that there are many lessons to be learned from the experiences of Canadian soldiers from the 20th Century, and applicable lessons to issues and events of today, whether they be militarily related, or not. A blog format is a unique and appropriate way to add some of that historical perspective into the mix.

Generals Old...

When the governing board of Alberta Health Services controversially released the President and CEO, prompting three members of the board to also resign, one commentator at the CBC website was prompted to comment:

It truly astounds me....

We pay half a million a year for these people because they "claim" to be the "best and brightest"

What were the yearly wages (inflation adjusted) for Guy Simonds, Harry Crerar, Charles Foulkes, Bert Hoffmeister, Ralph Keefler, Bruce Matthews, Harry Foster and Chris Vokes?

Now THAT was a world class management team.....but I'll bet no one knows who they were.

The comparison of the Second World War generals to a modern health care bureaucracy fails for several reasons, many of which were elucidated by another commentator later in the comments section, but the salient point is that there are many people still willing to look to the past as a guide to the future.

And new...

Then again, however, perhaps some things have simply changed too much. Brigadier General Daniel Ménard is in the news currently; this former commander of forces in Afghanistan has been censured for infidelity and fraternization. Again, public commentary on news sites has been raucous. Some commentators have posited that since wartime generals thought nothing of cheating on their wives, and they won "the big one" that way, it should be anything goes.

I think another goal of this blog will be to set inaccurate historical commentary straight when possible. General Eisenhower was cited as an example of an unfaithful husband, based mainly on rumours of an affair between Eisenhower and his driver, Kay Summersby. The relationship between the two was more than cordial, but apparently less than sexual, despite an autobiography written in 1975 (her earlier book written in 1948 made no claim to an affair.) There is some controversy about their relationship but nothing substantial to indicate that they had been lovers during the war.

More relevantly, it has been suggested that Canadian general officers were such good fighters because they were cheating on their wives. This aspect seems to have escaped historian extraordinaire Jack Granatstein, who literally wrote the book on Canadian senior commanders in the Second World War, entitled The Generals. One officer, General E.L.M. Burns, began an affair with a married woman in Montreal early in the war. As Brigadier, General Staff of the Canadian Corps in the U.K., he was discovered to be corresponding with her and making indiscreet references to people and policies to his lady friend. He was sent back to Canada and reduced to colonel. The affair with the woman, however, continued, and so did Burns' career. He returned to the UK in 1943, this time with his married girlfriend in tow, as a brigade commander in the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division. By 1 May 1943 he was a Major-General in command of the 2nd Infantry Division and eventually commanded I Canadian Corps in Italy.

The others, however, seem to have behaved themselves. Other historians spoke of the fidelity which at the time was a virtue. David Bercuson wrote of Lieutenant Colonel Ross Ellis' letters to his wife, which sustained him through the Northwest Europe campaign and the difficult days he faced as commanding officer of The Calgary Highlanders. Robert Calder wrote in A Richer Dust about his uncle who survived through the war in Italy after a quickie wartime marriage, to come home to find his wife, who in reality was a complete stranger he had never had a chance to know before he left for combat, had not been faithful. Unable to cope, and thinking he was owed more than he had gotten, he took his own life. Such, apparently, was the importance of fidelity to him. In the words of John Costello, author of Love, Sex and War, Calder's wife's views on fidelity may not have been unusual for the changing times, either. "While many of women's wartime economic gains were to be given up in the retreat to post-war domesticity after 1945, the seeds of a profound sexual revolution had already been sown. They were to germinate and flower two decades later into a movement for female liberation that won many of the rights for which the women of World War II had been fighting for."

At any rate, the point of all of this is that Canadian general officers in the Second World War were living in a considerably different climate, despite what commentators on the CBC website may like to think. There were certainly exceptions, and then, as now, the higher in rank one got, the more access to privileges one was likely to get. For the most part, Canadian general officers behaved with decorum (Granatstein does mention "womanizing" by Chris Vokes but provides no details); by all accounts the "love story" depicted in the "Dieppe" mini-series involving Major-General Hamilton Roberts was a nifty piece of fiction and it is unlikely charming widows were popping in on Roberts and Churchill Mann while they were planning the 2nd Division's darkest day.

Burns' indiscretions had almost killed his career as a senior commander before it started, and his female companion leaves Granatstein's narrative as soon as Burns arrives in England. Perhaps, like Burns' superiors, Granatstein felt the affair was irrelevant to the question of Burns' generalship. Once Burns moved to Italy it is doubtful if it was an issue.

My question to you

What other current news stories would benefit from a decent analysis of 20th Century "lessons learned"? Could the health care system, for example, really benefit from studying the leadership of the 1st Canadian Army - or the Canadian Corps? I've been to a session by a corporate motivational speaker who dresses as General Currie and presents to business leaders on the "lessons of Vimy". How far can the lessons really apply?