If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Enola Gay and all the controversy, discussions, name calling andeverything else it has brought up.
I read through most of those threads and I actually might be learning
something from them. ( BTW Art, keep posting your stuff too! I try to read most all threads unless the subject line looks absolutely boring. ) My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? Was there controversy over Bockscar ever?? I remember one of the statements posed by the original poster was that " The plane, in fact, differs little from other B-29s and gains its notoriety only from the deadly and history-altering nature of its mission." Okay, so what if the Smithsonian didn't display the Enola Gay, how about Bockscar? How about "The Great Artiste"? Would that be less controversial?? It flew along side both bomb runs! Why is it only the Enola Gay that stirs this stuff up? Past and present? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mark and Kim Smith wrote:
read most all threads unless the subject line looks absolutely boring. ) My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? Was there controversy over Bockscar ever?? I remember one of the statements posed by the original poster was that " The plane, in fact, differs little from *other* B-29s and gains its notoriety only from the deadly and history-altering nature of its mission." Okay, so what if the Smithsonian didn't display the Enola Gay, how about Bockscar? How about "The Great Artiste"? Would that be less controversial?? It flew along side both bomb runs! Why is it only the Enola Gay that stirs this stuff up? Past and present? I think many of the "demonstrators" against use of the nuke in WWII are "reflex" protesters. They single out Enola Gay because it is known. I'd be willing to bet a significant portion of them don't even know Bockscar, and certainly not Great Artiste. The same sort of thing has happened with the type of bombings. Hundreds of thousands dead from firebombs doesn't get much mention. But if they died of a nuclear bomb, it's somehow immoral. Enola Gay was the first and thus has the notoriety. It's a well known focal point with symbolic and political significance. I would think if attacks on Enola Gay become common (which could be the case every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima), replacing the exhibit with another B-29 might be a good idea. It would be a shame to have to limit access to the exhibits because of the dangers of a few politically driven whackos. SMH |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? For the same reason that 60,000-90,000 dead at Hiroshima weighs less in the balance than 100,000 dead in the Tokyo fire-bombing. Enola Gay was a leap into the new world, rather like the Wright Flyer, so we get excited about these vehicles. I have seen Bockscar, and I saw the partial display of Enola Gay in 1995, but I am really looking forward to seeing the whole aircraft at Udvar-Hazy next month. That is the plane that carried The Bomb and that ended the war, in a way unrivaled by any other aircraft of the hundreds of thousands that flew in harm's way from 1937 to 1945. all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message ... Mark and Kim Smith wrote: read most all threads unless the subject line looks absolutely boring. ) My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? Was there controversy over Bockscar ever?? I remember one of the statements posed by the original poster was that " The plane, in fact, differs little from *other* B-29s and gains its notoriety only from the deadly and history-altering nature of its mission." Okay, so what if the Smithsonian didn't display the Enola Gay, how about Bockscar? How about "The Great Artiste"? Would that be less controversial?? It flew along side both bomb runs! Why is it only the Enola Gay that stirs this stuff up? Past and present? I think many of the "demonstrators" against use of the nuke in WWII are "reflex" protesters. They single out Enola Gay because it is known. I'd be willing to bet a significant portion of them don't even know Bockscar, and certainly not Great Artiste. The same sort of thing has happened with the type of bombings. Hundreds of thousands dead from firebombs doesn't get much mention. But if they died of a nuclear bomb, it's somehow immoral. Enola Gay was the first and thus has the notoriety. It's a well known focal point with symbolic and political significance. I would think if attacks on Enola Gay become common (which could be the case every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima), replacing the exhibit with another B-29 might be a good idea. It would be a shame to have to limit access to the exhibits because of the dangers of a few politically driven whackos. SMH I agree with this analysis and have felt this way generally since the bomb was dropped. I would only add to this that there is now, and always has been, a contingent of people in the United States, ( in the world actually) comprised of those not involved directly by these things, who will react to something like this based completely on their negative emotional response to it ; without ever considering they are completely out of the loop of solid data used in making such decisions. It's a very interesting factor really; people having the right of free decision, but lacking the real first hand knowledge required to exercise that right intelligently by not being in the loop of decision that has affected their "vote" either way. Yet, based on what they have heard or read, they form rock solid opinions that are totally inflexible to change of any kind. I've always wondered how these opinions can be so solidly formed based on out of the loop information, yet not be subject to change by the influx of additional out of the loop information. I've always been fascinated by this interesting observation :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Dudley Henriques wrote:
I agree with this analysis and have felt this way generally since the bomb was dropped. I would only add to this that there is now, and always has been, a contingent of people in the United States, ( in the world actually) comprised of those not involved directly by these things, who will react to something like this based completely on their negative emotional response to it ; without ever considering they are completely out of the loop of solid data used in making such decisions. It's a very interesting factor really; people having the right of free decision, but lacking the real first hand knowledge required to exercise that right intelligently by not being in the loop of decision that has affected their "vote" either way. Yet, based on what they have heard or read, they form rock solid opinions that are totally inflexible to change of any kind. I've always wondered how these opinions can be so solidly formed based on out of the loop information, yet not be subject to change by the influx of additional out of the loop information. I've always been fascinated by this interesting observation :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired Dudley - Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's population is below average in intelligence (the percentage sometimes seems higher in the newsgroups... :-) Further, many of them were never taught (or never learned) logical thinking, problem solving skills, or the scientific method. Finally, many choose to make decisions based primarily on their emotional reactions instead of rational thought. Neither good nor bad; just the way it is. In light of this, what you (correctly) describe is certainly not surprising. Happy Holidays anyway |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"No Spam!" wrote in message ... Dudley Henriques wrote: I agree with this analysis and have felt this way generally since the bomb was dropped. I would only add to this that there is now, and always has been, a contingent of people in the United States, ( in the world actually) comprised of those not involved directly by these things, who will react to something like this based completely on their negative emotional response to it ; without ever considering they are completely out of the loop of solid data used in making such decisions. It's a very interesting factor really; people having the right of free decision, but lacking the real first hand knowledge required to exercise that right intelligently by not being in the loop of decision that has affected their "vote" either way. Yet, based on what they have heard or read, they form rock solid opinions that are totally inflexible to change of any kind. I've always wondered how these opinions can be so solidly formed based on out of the loop information, yet not be subject to change by the influx of additional out of the loop information. I've always been fascinated by this interesting observation :-) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired Dudley - Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's population is below average in intelligence (the percentage sometimes seems higher in the newsgroups... :-) Further, many of them were never taught (or never learned) logical thinking, problem solving skills, or the scientific method. Finally, many choose to make decisions based primarily on their emotional reactions instead of rational thought. Neither good nor bad; just the way it is. In light of this, what you (correctly) describe is certainly not surprising. Happy Holidays anyway anyway!!! :-)) I should note to you that whenever I even come close to extending my comment on this issue to include discussing what you are discussing here, I ALWAYS stop short of where you have gone with it since where it would take me is right into what I believe has happened in the United States educational system....and THAT opens a large door for the usual flame responses that I'd rather avoid if possible since it's such a controversial issue. :-)))) In short, you and I are not far apart on this at all!!! I just stopped in the "safe" zone!!!:-)) Dudley Henriques International Fighter Pilots Fellowship Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired For personal email, please replace the z's with e's. dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:59:09 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:
Mark and Kim Smith wrote: read most all threads unless the subject line looks absolutely boring. ) My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? Was there controversy over Bockscar ever?? I remember one of the statements posed by the original poster was that " The plane, in fact, differs little from *other* B-29s and gains its notoriety only from the deadly and history-altering nature of its mission." Okay, so what if the Smithsonian didn't display the Enola Gay, how about Bockscar? How about "The Great Artiste"? Would that be less controversial?? It flew along side both bomb runs! Why is it only the Enola Gay that stirs this stuff up? Past and present? I think many of the "demonstrators" against use of the nuke in WWII are "reflex" protesters. They single out Enola Gay because it is known. I'd be willing to bet a significant portion of them don't even know Bockscar, and certainly not Great Artiste. The same sort of thing has happened with the type of bombings. Hundreds of thousands dead from firebombs doesn't get much mention. But if they died of a nuclear bomb, it's somehow immoral. Enola Gay was the first and thus has the notoriety. It's a well known focal point with symbolic and political significance. I would think if attacks on Enola Gay become common (which could be the case every year on the anniversary of Hiroshima), replacing the exhibit with another B-29 might be a good idea. It would be a shame to have to limit access to the exhibits because of the dangers of a few politically driven whackos. SMH That would be surrendering to terrorists (the cowardly scum who stage such attacks are certainly terrorists). IMHO surrendering to terrorists is not a good strategy. Al Minyard |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
B2431 wrote: From: Mark and Kim Smith Date: 12/23/2003 4:07 AM Central Standard Time Message-id: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040509020503020207010504 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I read through most of those threads and I actually might be learning something from them. ( BTW Art, keep posting your stuff too! I try to read most all threads unless the subject line looks absolutely boring. ) My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar? Was there controversy over Bockscar ever?? 3) Most people know the name Enola Gay not Bockscar. This seems to tie in to other posts where folks are just plain uneducated about stuff. I'm referring to the original Enola Gay poster who suggested that any B29 would do. I would assume that this person would have no problem displaying Bockscar by the Snmithsonian. That is until he found out what role it played back then. It's all a matter of visibility and timing. Which seems to me a ridiculous way to begin a protest. Like a kid on a dirt bike only knows two ways, either all the way on or all the way off. There is no in between! Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"No Spam!" wrote:
Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's population is below average in intelligence I seem to be having trouble making sense out of this statement...perhaps you could enlighten me please?... -- -Gord. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|