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

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?

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.)

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

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 00:52:53 GMT, "Dudley Henriques" wrote:


"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
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

Rats, I wish I had said that :-))

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote:

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.

I'm very surprised there is reportedly no mention on the plaque, since the
various Smithsonian websites that mention the plane all seem to mention the
bomb. For example:

"During the war in the Pacific Theater, the B-29 delivered the first nuclear
weapons used in combat. On August 6, 1945, Colonel Paul W. Tibbets, Jr., in
command of the Superfortress "Enola Gay," dropped an atomic bomb on
Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later, Major Charles W. Sweeney piloted another
B-29 named "Bockscar" and dropped a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.
On August 14, 1945, the Japanese accepted Allied terms for unconditional
surrender.

....

"Late in 1944, AAF leaders selected the Martin assembly line to produce a
batch of Superfortress atomic bombers codenamed "Silverplate" aircraft.
Martin modified these special B-29s by deleting all gun turrets except for
the tail position, removing armor plate, installing Curtiss electric
propellers, and configuring the bomb bay to accommodate either the "Fat Man"
or "Little Boy" versions of the atomic bomb. The AAF assigned 15 Silverplate
ships to the 509th Composite Group commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets and he
named his personal B-29 "Enola Gay" after his mother."

http://www.nasm.si.edu/research/aero...boeing_b29.htm

I hope that the final exhibit at Udvaz-Hazy will have something similar.
Remember that the museum does not open for a month or so, so there is time
for additions. As of Monday, Enola Gay was still up on jacks, so it seems
likely that her display is not yet final. You can see her in a web cam at:

http://www.nasm.si.edu/interact/webcams/uhc1/uhc1vt.cfm

--
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)

Cub Driver wrote:

BUILD COMMUNITY - CELEBRATE DIVERSITY

as if it weren't precisely the emphasis on diversity that was
fracturing the community!

Here at UMass, there are actual administration positions that
deal with enhancing "diversity". Pay is pretty good from what
I've read!

Although I have no problems with trying to get greater "variety"
of ethnicities, religion, and points of view on a college campus,
I've come to the conclusion "diversity" is really nothing more
than a "code word" meaning [political] liberal point of view.


SMH

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. 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

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

(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

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
om...
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.
Brooks


From a Pratt and Whitney ad in the October 2001 issue of "Air Force
Magazine".

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

Tex Houston

"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.