In this piece, David Dean discusses the way in which controversy erupted over the Canadian War Museum’s (CWM) attempt to tell the story of a Second World War Allied campaign, the Combined Bomber Offensive or Bomber Command. The media and some politicians set up the debate as being about ownership of history, with the museum curators and four historians who were called in to review the display on one side and the veterans who lived the experience on the other. The veterans received the majority of public support, as opposed to the museum curators and historians who had researched the campaign. One historian who had evaluated the display explained that the source of the contention lay in the museum’s intention to raise questions about the ethics and effectiveness of the decision to bomb German civilians and industrial targets. In the end a Parliamentary sub-committee required the museum to change the display. Dean argues that the source of the contention, in addition to the questions the display raised, was also about the use of historical evidence, and varying ideas about the ways in which the public interprets displays. Moreover, considering the nature of the museum, he concludes the disagreement was inevitable and that it has done damage to future public history in Canada.

Prior to the Bomber Command incident, veterans spoke out against the inclusion of a holocaust museum in the CWM, and the museum learnt that consultation with veterans regarding changes was very important. It also brought the CWM to the state’s attention and helped to identify the need for a new museum that would tell the story of how Canada was shaped by the wars of the twentieth century. The veterans who launched the public campaign against the Bomber Command display felt that the location, text and images used were misleading to viewers in terms of the purpose and effectiveness of the bombing campaign. But when the four historians called in to critique the exhibition in the end affirmed it, the museum felt justified in making no further changes. This led to widespread debate in the media, and finally, a series of televised hearings before the Subcommittee on Veterans Affairs of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence with all the stakeholders. It became clear that the politicians felt the museum, having offended the veterans, should make changes and represent history in a way equally accurate, but less insulting.

Dean then questions what can be concluded from the resolution of this controversy. Why were the eyewitness accounts of veterans given priority over the accounts provided in quotations and photographs? Given that dealing with controversial topics is precisely what public surveys have requested of museums, why was the museum so unsupported by the public and senate sub-committee? Perhaps it was because the veterans already had won the public’s support over an earlier issue with a documentary that CBC had aired and then later apologized for. Or maybe it was because of timing, as it coincided with commemorative events that have shaped Canadian national identity: 2005 was the 60^th anniversary of the end of the Second World War and 2007 the 90^th anniversary of Vimy Ridge. He goes on to explain that the veterans’ argument is based on lived experience, and it has become nearly unthinkable to challenge lived experience without appearing rude or insensitive. He concludes by suggesting that the museum as sacred site won over the museum as trusted teacher.