(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
Alan Minyard wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 4 Nov 2003 00:31:43 +0100, "Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
. com...


http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...3-b0e0b1ac6c51

Quoting what was posted in another forum:

"History is not a commodity to be modified and repackaged to suit the
particular political agenda of a certain organization... "

Other thoughts about the subject are welcome...

I don't know what the display is like. If it indeed fails to mention
that this is the aircraft that dropped the first (operational) nuclear
bomb on Hiroshima, and doesn't discuss the controversy that
surrounds that decision, then that is indeed a serious omission
and, from a historical viewpoint, almost impossible to defend.

The aircraft, her crew, etc did not make the (correct) decision to drop
the device, why should it be a part of their history?

Where does such idiocy come from? The bombing of Hiroshima with an
atomic weapon changed everything. "Enola Gay" is known by everyone for
dropping the bomb and unleashing horrible destruction.

It did not "unleash" the horrible destruction; it did, however, help
end it. Kind of like setting a backfire to control a forest fire you
had nothing to do with starting.

If the NASM
wanted to display a B-29 for its technical merits they could have
refubished some other airframe. Like it or not "Enola Gay" is the
world's first nuclear bomber and her crew well known. The destruction
in Hiroshima is also well known and not equal to the attack on Pearl
Harbor nor the bombing of Tokyo.

Of course it is not "equal"; rarely is the objective in warfare to
obtain "equality" with your foe, though.

Was it justified? No.

In your strange opinion. Little wonder, being as you have a
demonstrated tendancy to support the Axis side in most of these
discussions.

Japan was
almost finished by Aug 1945,

"Almost finished" does not cut the mustard. "Almost winning" would not
have been a satisfactory outcome to the war. Not to mention that you
are using the advantage of post-conflict analysis to make that
deduction; the troops who stormed islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa
did not find them to be "almost finished".

the conventional B-29 attacks taking
their toll.

Yes, they were taking their toll, but no, that had yet to break the
Japanese will. I guess you would have found it quite acceptable to
continue the incendiary attacks, visiting the same fate that Tokyo
found on other Japanese metropolitan areas, with the accompanying high
death tolls (doubtless greater than what they ended up suffering in
the two nuclear attacks) and continued attritionary losses of US
personnel?

That's where the controversy begins and it should be
addressed in any display at the NASM.

I prefer the approach advanced by others in this forum, where the
simple facts are stated and you are left to draw your own conclusions.


To describe Enola Gay only as a superb technological achievement
misses the point entirely: The USAAF was not a research
organisation!

Actually it was and is. Of course, this is in addition to its other
roles (SAR, Combat, recon, etc.)

The bombing of Hiroshima was NOT a research run Al. It was the
destruction of a city with a war weapon of extreme magnitude compared
with the conventional bombs of the day. And the radiation consequences
postwar were not known at the time the bomb was dropped.

So what?


An aside: It is quite common, to the point of the absurdity, to
find an exhaustive discussion of all the properties of combat
aircraft, except their armament, its purpose and its effectiveness
-- which is the raison d'etre of a warplane. Especially when it
comes to WWII aircraft, discussion of aircraft armament are
noteworthy only by their omission. I hope the book by Tony
Williams and myself (see page in sig if you haven't heard about
it) will help a little bit to correct that.

I can understand that the Smithonsian would wish to avoid getting
involved in a political controversy, but then they need to get a better
communications advisor. Keeping mum is never a good way to deal
with a controversy; it is guaranteed to backfire. You simply have to
find a way to deal with something like this.

The logical approach seems to be to make Enola Gay the centrepiece
of an exhibition dealing with the end of the war in the Pacific. That
will not end the controversy, but at least it can make people debate
this issue with a little more knowledge of the facts. That certainly
is worth trying.

Yes, it is. The question is whether to display the Enola Gay, or
a bunch of idiots questioning the legitimate use of a weapon of
war. I would vote for a display that centered on the facts, and
just the facts.

Al Minyard

Any effective display needs to present both sides of the coin.

Which NASM proved unwilling, or unable, to do in the 93-95 timeframe.
Why do you think a new attempt will be any more successful (though
admittedly the absense of that ninny Harwit would make it a somewhat
easier proposition)?

"Why"
we felt justified in dropping the weapon vs the "consequences" for
Japan and the world afterward. Nuclear weapons are a grave threat to
humanity and even a Hiroshima-size bomb detonating in an American city
today would be infinately more devastating than losing the Twin Towers
on 9/11.
If you hide behind the "legitimacy" argument then please read the
story of Sadako and the 1000 cranes. Nuking Japan was a short-cut to
end the war but the moral question (like the bombing of Dresden) is
was it morally justified? In 1945 we believed in it but after the
effects of radiation became known in the postwar era along with the
introduction of thermonuclear weapons many people today (including the
older generation) have reconsidered their views. All of that needs to
be addressed in the display. This isn't revisionist history just some
soul-searching...

Gee, you must have missed that petition against the earlier display
plans that was signed by some 5,000 members of that "older
generation", specificaly ones who flew B-29's during the war. Be
careful speaking for that "older generation". My father was pulling
B-29 missions over Japan when this all came about--he still to this
day remains firmly convinced that dropping the bomb was the correct
decision. Considering the losses we would have sustained in a ground
invasion of the home islands that assessment is still defendable;
placing your post-conflict analysis hat on, we now know that the
Japanese also would have likely lost even more lives not only
defending against that invasion, but due to the lengthened period of
hardship and starvation that would have resulted for *all* of the
Japanese people.

Brooks


Rob