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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. I don't know. Of course. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|