The Valour and the Horror

The Valour and The Horror

FOREWORD

As producers of The Valour and the Horror, we have been thrilled with the overwhelming positive reaction that the series has generated. We are, however, also keenly aware of the criticism that has been directed at the films, and have carried out a thorough examination of all objections to the series, whether from veterans, historians, the CBC Ombudsman, or members of the viewing public at large.

On the whole, criticism of the series fall into one of two general categories. The first category encompasses claims that the films in some way demean the efforts and achievements of Canadians in the Second World War. The second consists of claims that the films were historically flawed; that is, that they include errors of fact and/or interpretation.

In response to the first category of criticisms, it must be stressed that one of the underlying intentions of the films was to pay homage to the valour, perseverance, and sacrifice of the Canadian World War Two veteran, whether he fought in Hong Kong, flew missions in the Bomber Command offensive, or participated in the campaign in Normandy. We believe that the films treat the story of the Canadian fighting man with the honour, respect, and sensitivity that it so richly deserves, and are encouraged by remarks by such prominent historians as Michael Bliss and Max Hastings, who have written, respectively:

I was particularly impressed with the respect you show for Canadian fighting men, both the valour they showed and the awful moral vortex in which they were caught up because of the savagery inherent in war.

Michael Bliss, June 13, 1992

I think the general tenor of your film [Death by Moonlight] ... pays full tribute to the courage and sacrifice of the aircrew who carried it out.

Max Hastings

May 11, 1992

At the same time, it is perhaps not surprising that many veterans and other Canadians are upset by the films. These are powerful stories. The terrible things that happened to our Canadian soldiers and airmen, and the terrible things that were sometimes done by them, are hard to witness, even fifty years later. Unfortunately, in telling contemporary histories, it is virtually impossible to avoid offending certain sensibilities. We do not, however, feel that it is sufficient reason to avoid telling contemporary histories altogether. Indeed, the vigorous public debate that the series has generated confirms that the Canadian public was more than ready to contemplate and discuss the issues involved. We are, in short, delighted that The Valour and the Horror has opened popular discussion in areas that have been, until now, largely ignored.

The second category of criticism, concerning historical accuracy, requires a somewhat more detailed response, and the bulk of this document is devoted to just such a response. Before entering into a detailed discussion of the relevant documentation, however, some general comments are warranted.

First, we would like to stress that much of the criticism of the series stems from a failure of its detractors to accept that the country's history can be told beyond the strictures of academia. Many of the academic historians assailing the series judge The Valour and the Horror on terrain of their choosing -- not as three documentary works of popular history, but as a doctoral thesis on the Second World War. They demand footnotes and immense documentation, refusing to acknowledge the need for brevity. But these are films, not books. We think it is self-evident that filmmakers cannot footnote and document facts on the screen the way that the writers of books do. The total number of words in a two-hour film script is under 20,000, while even the slimmest history book can run to 100,000 words.

Second, we feel that the films in The Valour and the Horror series should be judged in the light of a tenet commonly held by most historians -- that history is not carved in stone. The first generation to write it up never gets it right. Nor does any subsequent generation, because there is no single "right" interpretation. Not even the "facts" stay fixed, not only in the sense that new information emerges as people retire and archives get opened, but also in the sense that judgements change as to which facts are truly the most relevant. So each generation tries anew, partly to make sense of the past, and partly to make sense of the present.

Nobody, however, owns a special key to historical truth: neither those who were there at the time, nor those who were not yet born when the events occurred. There are no sacred texts. For historians, understanding what happened in the past and why is like doing a jigsaw puzzle, but with certain added complexities. First, you must select which bits of the puzzle are relevant, and only then can you try to make them fit. The supply of bits is almost endless, and they will fit together any number of ways.

The disagreements that result from the ambiguity associated with historical interpretation is perhaps best illustrated by example. Two of the historians who wrote to us with comments on the Bomber Command segment were Steve Harris, of the Department of National Defence, and Max Hastings, one of Britain's foremost military historians. Both of these historians agreed with most aspects of the film, but disagreed with other aspects. Interestingly, on the issue of the Dams raid, Steve Harris wrote "I cannot agree with every interpretation you present (for example, that the Dams raid was primarily a publicity stunt which, in the end, did more damage to Bomber Command than to Germany)," while Max Hastings wrote "You are, of course, completely correct about the Dams raid."

Meanwhile, on the issue of Air Marshal Arthur Harris (no relation to Steve Harris), Max Hastings cautions that the film "should have made more of the fact that Harris was at all times a subordinate, executing policy made by others," while Steve Harris states, "While it is true that Sir Arthur Harris did not originate the area bombing offensive, it is also true that he supported it longer and more vehemently than anyone else -- and in this sense I have no difficulty whatsoever with the prominent place you give him in the film with respect to the conduct of area bombing. If any one person could personify the area campaign, it was Harris."

Because such distinct responses from prominent historians are typical in issues of historical interpretation, it is not surprising that there are many historians who disagree with some aspects of the films in The Valour and the Horror series. Nor are such disagreements an embarrassment to us, for they are a reflection not on the films, but on the nature of history.

Despite the ambiguity which is involved in historical interpretation, there does tend to be some consensus as to what is important about the past among professional historians. It is a rough consensus that shifts over time, as new facts about the past become available and new ideas shift our focus on what is significant -- but it is never mere chaos, with each interpretation as good as the next. Historians regularly contest one another's interpretations, and the truly implausible ones do not survive.

In making the films, we have been guided by the consensus that exists among the best contemporary military historians about what happened and why. An immense amount of research and documentation, spread over more than two years, went into these films. As we have said, we could not footnote and document our facts on the screen. But here, in this text, we have the room and opportunity to give the sources for our interpretation of Canada's military history found in The Valour and the Horror. As will be made clear, far from being radical or isolated voices, they represent a cross-section of the most respected military historians working in the field in our time.

Galafilm Inc. May, 1993