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