"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