| Royal United Services Institute of Vancouver Island | ||||||||||||||||
  |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
for
University of Victoria
History 394 - Veteran’s Oral History
Professor: Dr. Cafferky
Written by: Jennifer Nicks
The Student and Veterans. ...
Conducting oral history interviews provides the opportunity to see the human impact of history that may not be experienced in the written word. Meeting with people who were actually part of particular events puts a new face on to cold and impersonal secondary sources. In order to provide an opportunity for future historians to better understand the human aspects of war, pilots who served during the Second World War in both the RCAF and the RAF were interviewed. The events contained in the interview are from the veteran’s own memory and as such the veteran takes the listener through what it was like for them. Secondary source material is removed from the event that is being described. Primary sources become essential to all historians because they give detailed and specific events. Since secondary sources are printed after the event and often do not consider the opinions of all the people who were actually there, they are not complete histories. In oral sources one is not removed from the event; rather someone who was there and experienced first hand what happened is guiding the historian through the events. When considering oral sources and secondary materials, oral sources are essential to the study of history because they add the human elements of history, such as the intonation of the interviewee’s voice.
There are some strengths of oral history that are not obtained when historians use secondary sources. Hearing another’s voice
offers opportunities that cannot be procured from the written word. The interviewer is treated to a certain pride that arises in the
eyes of veterans when they are given the opportunity to speak of their experiences and it is this pride that cannot be represented
on tape. Also, when one arrives at Flight Lieutenant Spooner’s home to discuss his contribution to the war, the guest is immediately
taken into the office and shown models, pictures, schematic drawings, and other items of interest as they pertain to the history of
the Typhoon.1 The Typhoon 
was
a single engine aircraft that was produced in the United Kingdom for the Allied forces during the Second World War.2
This part of oral history cannot be captured during the recording process and many future generations will not be able to share in
this experience with Flight Lieutenant Spooner. A face is given to history when the personal experience of someone who was there is
shared.3 Hearing about such experiences gives the event that is being discussed a
human face because there may be parallels that historians can draw to their own lives. For example, Flight Lieutenant William Rodney
illustrated what it was like for him to be working in the reserves while he went to school.4
This is the position that many historians may find themselves in, so it would be easier for the historian to see the trials and tribulations
that were encountered at the time. Also, the tone and volume of the interviewee’s voice can be recorded on the tape, but not
always in the written word.5 The physical response of the narrator can indicate the
emotional response to questions that have been posed, and most times this will not be caught on tape.
Oral histories can also validate information found in secondary sources. Since Typhoon squadrons often lived very close to the front lines: “Rocket Typhoon pilots in Normandy during the weeks following the Invasion bad a very rugged life”6 Flight Lieutenant Spooner supports this statement when he discussed his squadron’s advance into Europe after D-Day. 438 Squadron spent time camped out in an orchard as close to the front lines as they could stay and still be safe.7 The airfields that they were expected to use were quite damaged, but they made them work so that they could fly.8 A fellow Typhoon pilot agrees, saying that they camped out close to enemy lines and often heard bombers overhead.9 The Typhoon was a dangerous aircraft to fly; it was often flown at lower altitudes under the cover of radio silence and the pilot had to use visual techniques, as single engine pilots did, rather than being able to depend on instruments as pilots of larger aircraft could.10 This is supported by the statement “flying one of these aircraft was the most dangerous task the air force has ever asked anybody to do; but from the invasion right through to the end of the war they took on everything they were asked. “11 Flight Lieutenant Spooner believed that only the German soldiers knew what the Typhoon was, that was because the noise from the aircraft was so horrible that flying past the Germans soldiers would be intimidating enough that the mortars would stop.12 The noise must have been intimidating to all who heard it because a cartoon that was published at the time illustrates that the Typhoon pilots were the most intimidating men in the war, (See Appendix B for cartoon).13 The concern in the cartoon also illustrates Flight Lieutenant Spooner’s worry that the Typhoon might one day be forgotten. In some cases histories of air power have no mention at all of Typhoons. other sources that mention the Typhoon often depend heavily on pilots first hand experiences. Some of the sources that provide ample information on the Typhoon are materials that need to be hunted for, thus the casual historian may never read them.
Unfortunately, all history is compromised during the recording process. Both oral and written histories cannot incorporate all the information that is necessary to fully understand what has happened. Oral histories leave out what cannot fit on tape: in some cases it might be exact dates; in others, it may be something that happened, such as a gesture or the preparation that the veteran had done, before the interview, for example marking pages in his (in this case) log books or ensuring he has resources such as pictures to refer to during the interview. 14 The written sources are often edited and anything considered irrelevant is removed before the source is published. Oral histories, however, are not edited for words but content is still lost. Things such as gestures and body language cannot be recorded in audio tracks. On occasion, the interviewer gets the motion from the interviewee to stop the tape for a few moments and what is said cannot be shared with others who listen to the tape. There may have been some valuable information that was lost over the break that will not end up on the tape.
Another potential problem with oral history is that the interviewee may have romanticized the past in their memory.15 As Frisch illustrates, the more time that passes, “the greater the tendency to present the past experience in a variety of romanticized modes.“16 For example, Flight Lieutenant Robert Ladbury mentioned that he had a great crew and served with them the whole time he was in Bomber Command.17 In this case any personality differences that may have existed have been forgotten or not mentioned. Another problem that exists is bias and prejudice. Some of the statements that are made are opinion rather than remembrances. One example of this was Flight Lieutenant Rodney’s comment that real pilots flew real planes fifty years ago, whereas today’s pilots have “nothing on” the pilots who flew during the Second World War and today’s planes fly themselves.18
Some of the things that are shared between the interviewer and the interviewee while the tape is not running may prove helpful in adding clarity to the interview once the tape starts rolling. In some cases valuable information is lost because over-anxious veterans start sharing their history as soon as they open the door. 19 This, however, provides the interviewer a chance to refine the pre-drafted questions to get better responses from the interviewee.
These individuals who participate in oral histories were not glorified by a third party, the interviewer records the individual discussing their own experiences uncensored and in their own environment. The experiences of the individual have not been edited for content or cluttered with facts. Sometimes proper grammar is even lost, adding to the human element of history. Not everything fits nicely into published sources. It is simply what the veterans have to say about their experiences flying during the Second World War without adding anything else. Many of the words captured on tape are there because the veteran wanted to share them. There are some cases in which emotional scaring from the war may have prevented them from saying more or going into more detail, but there was still value to each and every interview. What they say or do not say is there for a reason; the words on the tape are there because the veteran wanted to share them, not because the editor thought they made sense on a page.
Some of the details of operations mentioned in the interview process cannot be found in secondary source material, but that does not necessarily mean that they did not happen. Flight Lieutenant Rodney was involved in some of the mining at Brest Harbour. He was able to give a wonderful description of his “gardening” operations in Brest Harbour during D-Day operations.20 From Flight Lieutenant Rodney’s description it sounds as though it was a large operation that required customized equipment and new flying techniques; the secondary sources that are available, however, do not mention this particular operation.21 One problem that exists is that Flight Lieutenant Rodney gave some specific descriptions and without additional sources it is not appropriate to say if this is able to be substantiated by other materials or other primary sources. The fact that Brest Harbour was mined is not hard to confirm, but it is the specific information on that particular operation that is difficult to find. This could be in part because the targets of the “gardening” operations were given code names of plants and flowers and without knowing what the code name for Brest Harbour was it is even harder to find sources to confirm this operation.22 Also, secondary sources may only be able to validate a portion of the operation since Flight Lieutenant Rodney gave a personalized account, which contains his personal roles and responsibilities.
Another example is Flight Lieutenant Spooner, who served with 438 Squadron, and his description of the squadron’s emblem. One aspect of daily life that the people outside of 438 Squadron may never have known was that the pilots all used to wear pins with the squadron’s crest on them. The image is of the wildcat, the squadron’s mascot, (see Appendix A for the logo). Flight Lieutenant Spooner claims that Disney designed the insignia for 438 Squadron.23 The problem with this statement is that the official history of the squadron, which describes details such as the coat of arms and motto, does not give any credit to the artist.24 As far as one can tell, someone who worked at Disney at some point may have designed it but it would be hard to confirm since there is no official artist. This fact may be true in which case it is a wonderful addition to the history of 438 Squadron, but it may also be that Flight Lieutenant Spooner was misinformed and, having never been told otherwise, continued to believe it. This is one of the hazards of oral history. Misinformation can be passed on as fact and incases such as these, there is a lack of secondary source material to prove or disprove the statements made by the veterans.25
Another thing to keep in mind is point of view. When an interview is taking place everything is from one person’s recollection and as such historians only get one side of the story. The benefit of oral history is that it is concentrated usually in the same squadron and sometimes it is as specific as looking at one particular crew on one particular operation. To get information that is this specific historians should use oral sources, as secondary sources are too broad. The veterans in this group often only knew what happened in their comer of the war and often times it was not until later that the events were contextualized. Flight Lieutenant John (Bill) Calder served in Coastal Command and as a result was sent on “armed rovers” to shoot anything German that he saw.26 While in the Bay of Biscay Flight Lieutenant Calder stumbled across four Dornier 217’s and as a result two were shot down and two were damaged.27 It is true that that the Germans used Dornier 217’s in the Atlantic as long range air/Sea reconnaissance and as such these aircraft may have been out collecting intelligence on the ship below when Flight Lieutenant Calder arrived and shot at them.28 Years after the war ended Flight Lieutenant Calder met a man who served in the navy and was in the Bay on that same night, so this “armed rover” may have prevented the sinking of an Allied ship.29 Secondary sources have a tendency to look at the overall picture for the most part. Even when they are looking at particular events they are usually not as able to give historians a specific statement. Secondary sources work well as background information and as preparation for interviews.
Sometimes the value lies in the lack of response from the veteran. The best example of this was that only one of four pilots was willing to discuss their Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC)30, and Flight Lieutenant Spooner claimed that he only got it because he was the wing commander and they could not award a DFC to all members of his wing. The fact that Flight Lieutenant Spooner believes he got his DFC on behalf of his wing is a wonderful addition to history. One might expect that decorated airmen to openly discuss, or even brag about, their heroics.32 His DFC was obtained for his action on a dangerous train-busting mission, but he did not want any recognition for his award. Secondary sources confirm the DFC’s were awarded for spectacular events. Perhaps the emotions of these events caused the veterans to hesitate when they were discussing the event. The human memory has a way of blocking out what it does not want to remember and Oral historians should be aware that it is not appropriate to pry for answers when the interviewee is reluctant to answer as this may cause the individual some distress.33
Another example in which oral sources validate the secondary sources would be the description of day-to-day life that occurred in Bomber Command. Flight Lieutenant Ladbury spoke of an average day in Bomber Command and his personal experience is almost exactly the same as the secondary source.34 The day would start and the crew would see if they could find out the fuel that was to be put on the bombers they could then estimate where they were going, the more fuel they got, the farther into Europe they might have been going.35 The bomb load that was put on the aircraft could also allow the crew to predict where they were going.36 This was not mentioned directly by Flight Lieutenant Ladbury, perhaps his crew could estimate where they were going based only on fuel consumption. Both sources confirm that crews ate together before being divided for separate briefings; they subdivided by occupation to get specific information about the upcoming operation.37 After these task specific briefings the crew was reconvened for the main briefing.38 The Commanding Officer would pull back the curtain to reveal what target was to be hit.39 This statement was confirmed both by Flight Lieutenant Ladbury and by secondary sources. However, the secondary sources, such as the book entitled Bomber Command, are rather blunt in the sense that they just say that it happened. Flight Lieutenant Ladbury has a way of describing briefings that includes slight pauses and builds the anticipation of the listener and perhaps helps to mimic the emotions and anticipation that were felt by the crews that were actually there.40 Finally, the Station Commander would rise to wish the troops luck before they left.41
Bomber Command as an organization also illustrates how veterans and secondary sources complement one another. Rank was not as important as one would expect. When in the air the pilot was in charge even if he was the lowest ranking man or officer on the plane.42 Survival was dependant on the way the crew worked together as well as luck.43 Failure of the pilot to consult with the crew could cost lives.44 Flight Lieutenant Ladbury claims that if a pilot had a good crew their chances at surviving the war would increase tremendously.45 “Wakie-wakie” pills were distributed by the parson before the men left for their operation, one to take halfway through the flight and the other Flight Lieutenant Ladbury took just before landing.46 when searching secondary sources for “wakie-wakie” pills the closest that can be found are caffeine pills that were consumed mid-flight to ensure the full attention of the flight crew was on the target.47
The Germans fighters would attack Allied bombers from below.48 As a preventative measure some pilots such as Flight Lieutenant Rodney would fly back to England at a low altitude to prevent the German fighters from flying underneath them.49 In addition to this statement Flight Lieutenant Rodney claims that the German fighters were humane because they shot at the wing tanks in order to give the pilot and crew about 30 seconds to evacuate.50 Bomber Command may have had a regulated how pilots spent their days, but so too did Coastal Command.
Flight Lieutenant Calder served in Coastal Command for much of the war and he did not want to share much about his experiences. In most cases he was sent out on “armed rovers” and on the odd occasion he was sent to protect a convoy.51 “Armed rovers” were basically seek and destroy missions; the planes were loaded with ammunition just in case it was needed and the pilots went out in search of targets.52 When the pilots actually found a target they would shoot the target down on their own unless the target was too big for one or two planes.53 Before the interview Flight Lieutenant Calder was very evasive with his remarks, saying simply that he did the same thing every time he was in his aircraft.54 Beaufighters and Mosquito’s were the aircraft that Flight Lieutenant Calder flew most often. When asked about the similarities and differences of these two aircraft Flight Lieutenant Calder indicated that they were interchangeable.55 One of the big differences that he mentioned was that the compass in the Beaufighters would not read correctly after the cannons were fired and this was not the case with the Mosquito.56 When asked later in the interview which side of the Mosquito debate he was on, he did say that the Mosquito was a wooden wonder and not a termites dream. 57 One particular book, The Wooden Wonder, states that the Mosquito was the aircraft that reigned supreme at sea.58 Later in the war the Mosquito came into service to replace the “redoubtable but slower and more vulnerable Beaufighter. “59 Flight Lieutenant Calder did believe the Mosquito was important to the RAF because it could carry out a large variety of tasks.60 This is confirmed in the statement that the Mosquito, by 1945, “was now recognized as the most versatile military aircraft of all time.”61
Oral interviews provide more than the written word in most cases. Future generations of historians “should abandon the classroom in order to knock on doors, troop the streets, and join groups; they should just “get in there and see what is going on.”62 The downside is that even when these interviews are recorded, not all that takes place ends up on the tape. It is very hard if not impossible - to get facial expressions and body language into words or to capture it on tape. This may be corrected in the future by using videotape, however, it may cause the interviewee to become even more self-conscious and may prevent certain things from being said.63 Even in cases where both the veterans and the secondary sources say the same words, the oral interview has greater value because it provides emotion, and for the interviewer it provides a face and a physical response to the words. The humbling experience of oral interviews is one that is worth pursuing.
Samuel Kostenuk, RCAF: squadron histories and aircraft, 1924-1968, (Toronto: A.M. Hakkert Ltd. 1977).
(Webmaster's note: This image from airforce.forces.gc.ca)
1 Personal Experience of interviewing Flight Lieutenant Spooner
2Chris Chant, Aircraft of World War II. (Etobicoke, Ontario: Prospero Books, 1999.), pp.
166-168.
3 Jolin Tosh, “History by Word of Mouth,” The Pursuit of History: Aims. Methods and
New Direction in the Study of Modern History (London: Longman 1992.), p.211.
4W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005.
5 Allessandro Portelli, “What Makes Oral History Different,” in The Oral History Reader, eds. Robert Perks and Alistair Thornson. (London and New York: Routledge, 1998.), 65.
6 John Golly, The Day of the Typhoon: Flving with the RAF Tankbusters in Normandv (Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens, 1986.), p.9.
7 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
8 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
9Golly, The Day of the Typhoon: Flying with the RAF tankbusters in Normandy. P.9.
10 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
11Arthur Reed and Roland Beaumont, Typhoon and Tempest at War (London: Ian Allan Ltd, 1974.), p.161.
12 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
13 Golly, The Day of the Typhoon: Flying with the RAF tankbusters in Normandy, p.6.
14 In my personal experience with interviewing veterans they had all prepared some materials even if it was making sure they had their pilot’s log handy.
15 Michael Frisch, “Oral History and Hard Times: A Review Essay,” In Oral History Review, Vol. 7(1979), p.35.
16Frisch, “Oral History and Hard Times: A Review Essay.” p.35.
17 R. G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005.
18 W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005.
19 This was the greeting that I received when I arrived to interview Flight Lieutenant Spooner.
20 W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005; Sir Maurice Dean, The Roval Air Force and Two World Wars. (London: Cassell Ltd. 1979.), p.163.
21 W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005. Also due to the time constraints I was unable to find secondary sources to support this statement, there may be some out there but I was not able to find them in time to write the paper.
22 Dean. The Royal Air Force and Two World Wars. p.163.
23 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
24 Samuel Kostenuk, RCAF: squadron histories and aircraft. 1924-1968. (Toronto: A.M. Hakkert Ltd. 1977), pp.135-136.
25 Portelli, “What Makes Oral History Different,” p.66+68.
26J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
27 J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005. 28Dean, The Roval Air Force and Two World Wars p.154.
29J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
30Henceforth with be referred to as only DFC.
31 R.E. Spooner personal interview on 17 February 2005.
32 As discussed in Dr. Cafferky’s office hours.
33 Paul Thompson, The Voice of the Past: Oral History (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 edition.), p.211.
34 Max Hastings. Bomber Command. (London: Michael Joseph Limited, Second Impression March 1980, and Copyrighted 1979.) p.157.
35 R. G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005.
36 Hastings, Bomber Command. p.157.
37 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; Hastings, Bomber Command. 159.
38 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; Hastings, Bomber Command, 159.
39 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; Hastings, Bomber Command. 159.
40 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; Hastings, Bomber Command,159.
41 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; Hastings, Bomber Command,160.
42 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005; M. Garbett and B. Goulding, Lancaster. (London: The Promotional Reprint Company, 1997), p.195.
43 R.O. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005. M. Garbett and Goulding. Lancaster. P.195.
45 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005.
46 R.G. Ladbury personal interview on 23 February 2005.
47 Hastings. Bomber Command. p.164
48 W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005, And Hastings. Bomber Command. 165.
49 W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005.
50W. Rodney personal interview on 10 March 2005.
51 J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
52J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
53 J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
54 This statement was referenced in the original telephone conversation and was reiterated many times during the interview process with Flight Lieutenant Calder.
55 J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
56 J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
57J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
58Edward Bishop, The Wooden Wonder, (London: Max Parrish and Co. Limited, 1959.), 127.
59 Bishop, The Wooden Wonder, p.123.
60J.M. Calder personal interview on 16 February 2005.
61 Bishop, The Wooden Wonder p.127.
62 Maurice Punch, “Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research,” In Denzin and Lincoln. Handbook of Qualitative Research, p.83.
63 The use of video recording was discussed in history 394 seminars and their implications were also illustrated within the seminars.
Bishop, Edward. The Wooden Wonder. London: Max Parrish and Co. Limited, 1959.
Calder, John (Bill) M. “My Air Force Experiences by Flight Lieutenant Calder” as will soon be appearing in Special Collections at McPherson Library. Recorded in Sidney, British Columbia on 16 February 2005.
Chant, Chris. Aircraft of World War II. Etobicoke, Ontario: Prospero Books, 1999.
Dean, Sir Maurice. The Royal Air Force and Two World Wars. London: Cassell Ltd. 1979.
Frisch, Michael. “Oral History and Hard Times: A Reyiew Essay,” In Oral History Review. Vol.7(1979), pp.70-79.
Garbett, M. and B. Goulding. Lancaster. London: The Promotional Reprint Company. 1997.
Golly, John. The Day of the Typhoon: Flying with the RAF Tankbusters in Normandy Wellingborough: Patrick Stephens, 1986.
Hastings, Max. Bomber Command. London: Michael Joseph Limited, Second impression March 1980, and Copyrighted 1979.
Kostenuk, Samuel. RCAF: squadron histories and aircraft, 1924-1968. Toronto: A.M. HakkertLtd. 1977.
Ladbury, Robert (Bob) G. “My Air Force Experiences by Flight Lieutenant Ladbury” as will soon be appearing in Special Collections at McPherson Library. Recorded in Victoria, British Columbia on 15 and 23 February 2005.
Portelli, Allessandro, “What Makes Oral History Different,” in The Oral History Reader, eds. Robert Perks and Mistair Thomson. London and New York:
Routledge, 1998, pp.63-74.
Punch, Maurice. “Politics and Ethics in Qualitative Research.” In Denzin and Lincoln. Handbook of Oualitative Research, pp.83-97.
Reed, Arthur and Roland Beaumont. Typhoon and Tempest at War. London: Ian Allan Ltd, 1974.
Rodney, William. “My Air Force Experiences by Flight Lieutenant Rodney” as will soon be appearing in Special Collections at McPherson Library. Recorded in Victoria, British Columbia on 10 March 2005.
Spooner, Robert E. “My Air Force Experiences by Flight Lieutenant Spooner” as will soon be appearing in Special Collections at McPherson Library. Recorded in Saanichton, British Columbia on 17 February 2005.
Thompson, Paul. The Voice of the Past: Oral History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988 edition.
Tosh, John. “History by Word of Mouth.” The Pursuit of History: Aims, Methods and New Direction in the Study of Modern History. London: Longman 1992, pp. 20&227.
