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: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Polybus wrote:
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." The planned exhibit is devoid not only of historical context and discussion of the ongoing controversy Is the display of this aircraft any less devoid of historical context and discussion than any other exhibit? My understanding is that the musuem wants to treat this like any other aircraft on display. It's not a political exhibit, it's a technological one. Your crossposting to food and celebrity newsgroups is very odd...... |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
mrtrav3 wrote:
Is the display of this aircraft any less devoid of historical context and discussion than any other exhibit? My understanding is that the musuem wants to treat this like any other aircraft on display. It's not a political exhibit, it's a technological one. I think that is an excellent point. Surely there should be mention of the B-29 being the mule that delivered the first atomic bomb, and even how many people that one bomb killed compared to that of the thousands of fire bombs these aircraft dropped earlier on Japan. The application of the atomic bomb in areal warfare is as significant as crossing the Atlantic, or going around the world without refueling, or breaking the speed of sound. So its mention is certainly a requirement of any display of the B-29. Making the display a focal point for a political debate on the appropriateness of atomic weaponry, the arms race, or neo-conservativism threats to world peace and harmony doesn't seem to be proper to me. Your crossposting to food and celebrity newsgroups is very odd...... Wondered about that myself. SMH |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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. 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. Peter G. Aitken |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
No matter how
necessary and justified you think the bombing was, it is nothing to celebrate. Unless you're one of the countless thousands (Japanese and American) who life was saved because the war ended in August 1945 vis August 1946. BUFDRVR "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips everyone on Bear Creek" |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Just a factual question: was there ever a statistic of the number of deaths via
fire bombing vs. the nuclear bombs? Just wondering. Thx, VL |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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? all the best -- Dan Ford email: see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"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. -- Peter Aitken Remove the crap from my email address before using. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|