Enola Gay: Burnt flesh and other magnificent technological achievements

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

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.

"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"

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

"Peter Aitken" wrote:
"A.T. Hagan" wrote in
message
. com...
(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


That B-29 in particluar, and it's sister ship Bock's Car did more to end
the war than the revisionsts want to admit. Which is cheaper? Ten crew on
a B-29 over Hiroshima or Nagasaki-or over a million soldiers, sailors, airmen,
and Marines (Both American and British) on the beaches and sea approaches
to Kyushu? And revisionists make me puke, as I have no use for them in any
way, shape, or form.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

Emmanuel Gustin wrote:
planned exhibit and that President Truman's use of atomic weapons will
legitimize the Bush administration's current effort to lower the
threshold for future use of nuclear weapons.

This is rather far-fetched. While I think Bush' current nuclear
plans are immoral, stupid, and counter-productive, I am not
in the least afraid that the opinion of the American public
will be swayed by the Enola Gay exhibition. We are not
talking about the latest Coca-Cola commercial, this is an
aeroplane on display in (yuck) a museum.

You almost threw me there Emmanuel!

In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.

For a moment I thought you were actually standing up in defense of
the American public. You know, basic goodness and common sense that
over time, keeps the country on track.

But alas, they are in reality the dimwits that intellectual Euros
(and lefty Americans) stereotype them as. Oblivious of history, and
concerned only with the next deal at Costco.

Thank you for not disappointing me.


SMH

Stephen Harding wrote:

: In reading your defense of the American use of the atomic bomb, and
: the refutation of some of the lefties claims of the evil nature of
: American leadership (over the entire history of the nation), I thought
: perhaps you weren't quite the anti-American ideologue I'd pegged you as.

And you were right -- I am not an anti-American ideologue.

I do condemn and resent, however, those -- on the left; but
also people on the right, like you -- who somehow want to
lump together the historical decision to use the bomb against
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, with the intentions of the current US
governments to develop nuclear weapons that are explicitly
intended for first-strike use in limited warfare. Different
context, different leaders, different goals and different
consequences: Let us decide each case on its own merit.

Truman's decision, seen in the context of 1945, was an
understandable one, rationally defensible and morally not
worse than many other acts perpetrated in this war, by friend
and foe alike. It is very hard to attach any kind of approval
to this decision; but perhaps it is sufficient to say that
certainly most of the arguments that are used to condemn it
don't survive closer scrutiny.

The Bush nuclear policy is not defensible, not on moral
grounds and not on grounds of self-interest. It is a prime
example of ideology-driven boneheadedness.

--
Emmanuel Gustin