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

Absafraggin'loutly....
My 2 cents worth.
Dropping the bomb was an abominable thing to do, it really was...
And I hate the Japanese for making us do it.

KenG

wrote:
"Tex Houston" wrote:


THERE IS NO SECTION TITLED,
"THE UNFAIR USE OF TECHNOLOGY"
IN THE GENEVA CONVENTION.

Tex Houston


Says it all (in this regard) doesn't it...
--

-Gord.

What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than drop
the bomb
on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in the
military or
been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once you
have
experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the loss
of life
to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not been
responsible for any American lives.



"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
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...3-48d5-8543-b0
e0b1ac6c51

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. 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. Was it justified? No. Japan was
almost finished by Aug 1945, the conventional B-29 attacks taking
their toll. That's where the controversy begins and it should be
addressed in any display at the NASM.

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.

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. "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...

Rob

I hear by nominate you as the next head of the NASM.

Al Minyard

Does the NASM have a men's room? If so, I hereby nominate Al Minyard
for an attendant position. He's qualified!

Rob

Any reasonable (if that's still possible) evaluation of the bomb (as
opposed to Enola Gay) would also have to address the fact that no one
in a position of authority knew what its effects would be. The plans
for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu planned for November 1945, called
for *two* atomic bombs to be allocated to each beach. (I think there
were ten beaches.)

The first bomb was to be exploded near the shore just before the
American troops (and some from the British Commonwealth) went in.

The second was to be held in reserve in case the Japanese managed to
launch a heavy counterstrike against the beach.

That a million friendlies were to be marched through atomic debris
shows how tenuous was the grasp of radioactivy in the summer of 1945.

(It also shows how far from "finished" the men in Washington regarded
the Empire of Japan.)

www.warbirdforum.com/third.htm

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...

Any reasonable (if that's still possible) evaluation of the bomb (as
opposed to Enola Gay) would also have to address the fact that no one
in a position of authority knew what its effects would be. The plans
for Olympic, the invasion of Kyushu planned for November 1945, called
for *two* atomic bombs to be allocated to each beach. (I think there
were ten beaches.)


Well sort of.

The plans for Olympic as actually drawn up didnt include the
use of atomic weapons since the planners didnt know of their
existence !

Its likely that had the invasion actually gone ahead such weapons
would have been used and there was some discussion along the
lines you mention but no formal plans were drawn up to my knowledge.

Its clear that the original plans in Olympic grossly underestimated Japanese
strength at 229,000. By July it was realised that the true force was
nearer 700,000 and it was then that Marshall suggested it might
be necessary to use nuclear weapons prior to invasion. It
was also suggested that massive attacks with chemical weapons
be made IRC

There's a nice article on the subject at

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/

The estimated number of Japanese casualties in such an invasion
even without the use of nuclear weapons was in excess of
2 million.

Keith

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



http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...3-48d5-8543-b0
e0b1ac6c51

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.

Today's Washington Post has more on the exhibit. It does in fact include
the statment: "On August 6, 1945, this Martin-built B0-29-45-MO dropped the
first atomic bomb used in combat on Hiroshima, Japan."

It does not discuss the issues surrounding that decision, which seems to be
in keeping with how other items at the museum are displayed. Udvar-Hazy is
not (AFAIK) doing extensive interpretive exhibitions, just displaying the
aircraft and the bare minimum of historical data.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Nov5.html
--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

Alan Minyard wrote:
On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:56:01 GMT, "Matt Wiser"
wrote:


(Vicente Vazquez)
wrote:
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...
As someone with a BA and MA in history, I
fully agree with the above quotation.
History is not meant to be PC. You tell it
like it was.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news
gateway for usenet access!

I hear by nominate you as the next head of the
NASM.

Al Minyard
Thank you. Hope you keep that in mind when they have their next fiasco
over an exhibit.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

"Rick Folkers" wrote in message . ..
What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than drop
the bomb
on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in the
military or
been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once you
have
experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the loss
of life
to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not been
responsible for any American lives.

Not a fool at all, just commenting on the difference between military
justification and moral justification.
Some people believe that morality goes out the window in war yet
America always claims to be above everyone else in its treatment of
our enemies.
When the A-bomb was tested the scientists didn't want it used. Truman
thought otherwise for the very reason you state- to save American (and
Japanese) lives, preventing a long guerilla war that could have lasted
a decade. I agree with that too.
But on the moral level the answer is no. The A-bombs weren't needed to
finish off Japan who by Aug 1945 were making weapons in cottage
industries with unskilled labor (many of them school children).
Truman must have had some morality left in him too because he called
off the nuclear bombing of Japan after the second bomb. Number 3 was
on its way and was recalled. So, its not just my opinion historically
speaking.
And even if there are protests by veterans over the historical use of
the B-29/Little Boy, there are also those who have changed their views
over the past 6 decades.
The display at the NASM needs to reflect that IMO.

Rob

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...
"Rick Folkers" wrote in message
. ..
What a fool. You think it better to lose 100,000+ American lives than
drop
the bomb
on the people who started the war. You obviously have never served in
the
military or
been responsible for the lives of men serving under your command. Once
you
have
experienced that responsibility you do what you need to to minimize the
loss
of life
to your own people. Thank whatever powers that be that you have not
been
responsible for any American lives.

Not a fool at all, just commenting on the difference between military
justification and moral justification.
Some people believe that morality goes out the window in war yet
America always claims to be above everyone else in its treatment of
our enemies.
When the A-bomb was tested the scientists didn't want it used.

Nobody including Truman WANTED to use it but many of the
scientists approved of its use and indeed went on to design the
next generation of nuclear weapons.

Truman
thought otherwise for the very reason you state- to save American (and
Japanese) lives, preventing a long guerilla war that could have lasted
a decade. I agree with that too.
But on the moral level the answer is no. The A-bombs weren't needed to
finish off Japan who by Aug 1945 were making weapons in cottage
industries with unskilled labor (many of them school children).

Thats not the way to judge the moral issues.

Yes the USA COULD have defeated Japan without using the bomb
but its hardly a moral choice to kill 2 million people instead of 200,000.


Truman must have had some morality left in him too because he called
off the nuclear bombing of Japan after the second bomb. Number 3 was
on its way and was recalled. So, its not just my opinion historically
speaking.

In fact we know Truman was considering ordering
a third strike on Tokyo when the Japanese surrendered

And even if there are protests by veterans over the historical use of
the B-29/Little Boy, there are also those who have changed their views
over the past 6 decades.
The display at the NASM needs to reflect that IMO.

It should also address the issue that thousands of people
including Chinese civilians , Japanese citizens, Allied Soldiers
and POW's were dying every week the war dragged on.

The fighting didnt stop while all this happened, there was a
war being waged in Malaya, China and Borneo as well
as at sea and in the air.

Keith

Its likely that had the invasion actually gone ahead such weapons
would have been used and there was some discussion along the
lines you mention but no formal plans were drawn up to my knowledge.

The bombs were in the plans as of the first of August, as published a
few years ago.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (put CUB in subject line)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com