Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

Peter Aitken wrote:

You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be the
Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the
A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may support
the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying
that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem
like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
celebrate.

Well there aren't lots of B-29s floating around these days. It's not
so easy to just "grab one" for a display.

Most importantly, the Enola Gay is an historic aircraft, and the
Smithsonian "Air and Space *Museum*" is a *museum*! It's a very
good example of a B-29 to be displayed!

If you want to think of the display as a "celebration" of nuclear
murder of innocents, feel free to think so. If someone else wants
to think of the aircraft as a pristine example of the height of
propeller driven bomber technology *ever*, then let them.

Despite what you may possibly think, the government is not monitoring
your thoughts while you peruse the Udvar-Hazy facility displays...

Well...actually it is supposed to be state of the art. Maybe those
sneaky CIA/NSA types snuck someone into the construction crews and...


SMH

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
Peter Aitken wrote:

You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the
Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping
the
A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors. You may
support
the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no
denying
that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit
seem
like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
celebrate.

Well there aren't lots of B-29s floating around these days. It's not
so easy to just "grab one" for a display.

Most importantly, the Enola Gay is an historic aircraft, and the
Smithsonian "Air and Space *Museum*" is a *museum*! It's a very
good example of a B-29 to be displayed!

If you want to think of the display as a "celebration" of nuclear
murder of innocents, feel free to think so. If someone else wants
to think of the aircraft as a pristine example of the height of
propeller driven bomber technology *ever*, then let them.

Despite what you may possibly think, the government is not monitoring
your thoughts while you peruse the Udvar-Hazy facility displays...

Well...actually it is supposed to be state of the art. Maybe those
sneaky CIA/NSA types snuck someone into the construction crews and...

I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and it
was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed in
WWII was all a bad thing.

Peter Aitken wrote:
"Cub Driver" wrote in message

You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the

Enola Gay

Because it was the most important B-29 ever built?

It was important because it dropped the bomb - my exact point.

You're point seemed to be that the display was a "celebration" of
killing people by nuclear means.

It is simply the most famous aircraft of WWII, which seems a good
reason for its display in a museum.


SMH

MLenoch wrote:

Just a factual question: was there ever a statistic of the number of deaths via
fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just wondering. Thx,

Yes there have been some such stats, but they vary a bit.

There is the issue of how many people died during the explosion
versus days/weeks/months after.

Firebombing (or any sort of bombing) can produce lingering, or
drawn out deaths, but the nuclear bombing this was more pronounced.

I've read that some "counters" in Japan continue to add to the death
toll of Hiroshima/Nagasaki as people who were there and survived that
day finally start to die off. Basically *everyone* in those towns
becomes part of the death toll eventually for these types of counters.

The numbers I've come across, with some [maybe] small percent variation
due to faulty memory, are something like this:

Hiroshima: 85,000 (I've read stats going up over 100,000)
Nagasaki : 65,000 (max I've seen is around 80,000)

One night firebombing of Tokyo by LeMay and company: 120,000-150,000.


SMH

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:

Bombardments with high explosives killed far fewer people;
the common estimate was about one death per ton of bombs.
(About 2,000 tons of incendiaries were dropped in the Tokyo
raid.) No doubt in part because HE was used more against
factories or military installations, while firebombs were used
against dense population concentrations, but also because the
firestorms set up by intense firebombing amplified the scale
of the destruction many times.

Can't remember where I'd read some of the methodologies for
bombing during WWII. Perhaps Art could elucidate if he sees
this.

Someone mentioned that on some raids in Germany, bombers dropped
a range of bombs over several different "waves" of attacking
aircraft.

One wave would drop high explosive to destroy buildings. Later
waves might have more anti-personnel oriented weaponry to kill
the firemen fighting the fires, while delayed HE might be designed
to sink deeper into the ground before exploding, thus rupturing
gas and water lines, for more devastating effect.

I doubt this was done for every major attack on a city. Certainly
Art's sort of bombing was more tactical against bridges and railroads.

But what about the B-17/B-24 and Lanc guys? Were they very regularly
doing this sort of thing?

Today we would regard this as "barbaric" and too directed towards
"innocent civilians". But back then, "tough luck"! You're with
"them" and you pay.

A very different mind set than today.


SMH

SNIP Cooking group

"Peter Aitken" wrote in message
news
"A.T. Hagan" wrote in message
om...
(Polybus) wrote in message
. com...
Dear Friend,

A committee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, students, and
other interested individuals is now forming to challenge the
Smithsonian's plans to exhibit the Enola Gay solely as a "magnificent
technological achievement."

GOOD.

I'm glad to hear the Smithsonian has finally come to its senses and
stopped acting ashamed of an important part of our national history
that we have NO reason to be ashamed of.

Unlike a good number of people who seem to be educated beyond their
intelligence.

Not that this topic has anything at all to do with rec.food.cooking
which is where I read the thing.

.....Alan.

You and others are missing the point. If the B-29 is a "magnificent
technological achievement" fine, display one. But why does it have to be
the
Enola Gay? That specific plane is unavoidable associated with dropping the
A-bomb on a civilian target with all the resulting horrors.

A "civilian target"? Now would be a good time to revisit the whole issue of
"total war", within the context of the time this occurred (as opposed to
trying to apply modern standards to it)...but I am sure it would be a waste
of both your and my time.

You may support
the dropping of the bomb or you may be against it, but there's no denying
that displaying *this* B-29 rather than another one makes the exhibit seem
like a celebration of the bombing rather than the bomber. No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to
celebrate.

I don't know. The guys in my dad's outfit (330th BG/314th BW) who were in
the midst of conducting missions at the time thought it was well worth
celebrating. As did a lot of ground troops who breathed a collective sight
of relief when they found that Olympic/Coronet were not needed.

Brooks


Peter G. Aitken

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
I don't know.

Of course.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
I don't know.

Of course.

Take a note, Tarvernaut. Not everyone around here claims to know everything;
those like you who do just provide the laughs for the rest of us.

Brooks

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..

"Tarver Engineering" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message
. ..
I don't know.

Of course.

Take a note, Tarvernaut. Not everyone around here claims to know
everything;
those like you who do just provide the laughs for the rest of us.

I intentionally provide laughs for quite a few, get a clue.

"Tarver Engineering" wrote:


I think the story could be told, with the final sentence containing, "and it
was a very bad thing". I think we can all agree that the millions killed in
WWII was all a bad thing.


Jesus no John...can you just imagine...everything used in warfare
with that stupid tagline on it? "So folks here's an example of a
musket used in ancient wars. It was much more lethal than the
clubs and spears used up till then. It could actually kill a man
at 100 feet every 1.5 minutes!, and it was a very bad
thing"...good God.

Just put the Enola Gay in there with a sign indicating that it
was a technological leap both in aircraft and armament design. It
was used to drop the first of two atomic bombs which ended WW2

-Gord.

"I'm trying to get as old as I can,
and it must be working 'cause I'm
the oldest now that I've ever been"