Seems like "Enola Gay" was caught in a revisionist storm... AGAIN!!

"John Keeney" wrote in message
...

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote in message
...
"Vicente Vazquez" wrote in message
om...





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

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.

I totally agree with this, and I believe that is also a possible
solution
being discussed at the highest levels.
The aircraft should and probably will be displayed with absolutely no
attempt to project agenda or conclusion . The effect will be as one
viewing
a fine painting in a gallery; reflection. The controversy is just too
intense...too divisive to do it any other way.
The Enola Gay is part of American history. It should be presented in
that
context alone, with a simple notation that defines the part of history
to
which the aircraft belongs. The final thoughts on the matter should be
silently left to the viewer.
I believe this is how it will be done.
Dudley Henriques

If it was up to me, there would be two plaques: one, the basic museum
spill as to particulars of this *type* of plane; two, one telling why
*this*
plane is historically important: something like "The Enola Gay was the
plane from which the first... 1945."
Each plaque need be no bigger than about 24"x18" with fairly large
lettering to boot.

The problem with the Enola Gay is that the plane and the events connected
with it represent a pivotal point, perhaps THE pivotal point in world
history. As such, it's a symbol that instantly galvanizes ordinary people
into the various categories in which they view both the airplane and the
events connected with it. The dropping of the first atomic bomb is perhaps
the most world wide galvanizing moment that has occurred on the planet. The
act, and the implications of the act, as it was occurring transcend all
conceptions of right and wrong. It simply changed the world we live in
forever. In fact, the implications are so vast, and so deeply buried in the
human existence on the planet, that the political aspects of the event pale
before the event itself.
This poses, or should pose at least, a HUGE problem for anyone designing a
permanent display for the Enola Gay. People will be coming from all over the
world to view the airplane; people whose lives have been affected, right or
wrong, by the events connected with the plane. When one considers the huge
divide on these issues in the United States alone, one only begins to
comprehend the complexity of displaying the Enola Gay properly for history.
I have always believed that the presentation of true history demands an
honesty that is quite difficult to obtain. Very few historians have managed
to reach this level of "honesty". It requires that one present all sides of
the issues. This is the easy part of historical presentation. The hard part
is the conclusions. This is where agenda and political correctness rear
their ugly heads. This is where history gets "skewed" to one viewpoint or
another. Historians have to be careful when dealing with something like the
Enola Gay. Although the event the airplane represents involved an American
decision, that decision has far deeper implications than American history.
I believe in the special case of the Gay, history should be presented
plainly as it occurred and without "conclusion". People should be allowed to
view the exhibit completely devoid of any conclusion concerning the events
associated with the airplane.
The dropping of the first Atomic Bomb should be an event worthy of deep
reflection and personal thought. The objective of the display should not be
to place blame, or right or wrong. The overpowering objective should be to
encourage people by what's NOT said or printed, to go home to wherever they
live on the planet after viewing the display, and THINK about war, and the
results of war.
The Enola Gay can of course be presented in a pure historical form, or with
a hidden political agenda. The later didn't work before and was a bad idea
from the starting gate. I'm sure they won't make this mistake again. The
pure historical path seems cold to me somehow. It neglects the human factor,
which in this specific case, I believe is wholly relevant to history. The
Enola Gay isn't really an American issue. It isn't a Japanese issue either.
It's a world issue, and how it's finally presented to that world will in
part determine how that world views those who presented it.
It's a difficult and demanding task that requires an extremely delicate
approach.
We'll see if the Smithsonian is up to it!!
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt