TACTIC: Fire
There is a conspiracy-narrative concerning events during the Second World War that occurred on a stretch of deserted pebble beach called Shingle Street on the east coast of England. The story wobbles between a secret, large-scale German invasion, a small incursive German force and some sort of local Allied exercise; whichever it is, the denouement of the tale is always the wholesale incineration of those involved by ignited gas pumped into the sea in hidden pipes, consuming everything in a bubbling ocean of flame.
A few miles away, at the Woodbridge RAF base, an immense runway was constructed during the war for the use of aircraft in difficulty, damaged in raids over continental Europe, returning under the less-than-full control of their crews. In the event of mist or fog adding to a pilot’s difficulties, FIDO (Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation) was triggered and, to burn off the miasma, sheets of flame from the vapours of petrol pumped at a rate of 100,000 gallons per hour were thrown up around the runway.
While both stories are intriguing, which is the most _____________ (insert your own value judgement here)? Credible? Exotic? Meaningful? Significant? Symbolic? Revealing? It seems impossible to escape from what historical narratives can do – reveal, symbolise, summarise, upset – in order to get to some passive thing that might be described as ‘history itself’.
Or have you learnt already that certain questions don’t need to be asked or answered?
Next time you visit a heritage site take a box of matches and observe the site through a tiny sheet of flame.
A few miles away, at the Woodbridge RAF base, an immense runway was constructed during the war for the use of aircraft in difficulty, damaged in raids over continental Europe, returning under the less-than-full control of their crews. In the event of mist or fog adding to a pilot’s difficulties, FIDO (Fog Investigation and Dispersal Operation) was triggered and, to burn off the miasma, sheets of flame from the vapours of petrol pumped at a rate of 100,000 gallons per hour were thrown up around the runway.
While both stories are intriguing, which is the most _____________ (insert your own value judgement here)? Credible? Exotic? Meaningful? Significant? Symbolic? Revealing? It seems impossible to escape from what historical narratives can do – reveal, symbolise, summarise, upset – in order to get to some passive thing that might be described as ‘history itself’.
Or have you learnt already that certain questions don’t need to be asked or answered?
Next time you visit a heritage site take a box of matches and observe the site through a tiny sheet of flame.
