Enola Gay and all the controversy, discussions, name calling andeverything else it has brought up.

I read through most of those threads and I actually might be learning
something from them. ( BTW Art, keep posting your stuff too! I try to
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?

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

My question is, there were two A bombs dropped, but only one by the
Enola Gay. Why no controversy over the display of Bockscar?

For the same reason that 60,000-90,000 dead at Hiroshima weighs less
in the balance than 100,000 dead in the Tokyo fire-bombing.

Enola Gay was a leap into the new world, rather like the Wright Flyer,
so we get excited about these vehicles. I have seen Bockscar, and I
saw the partial display of Enola Gay in 1995, but I am really looking
forward to seeing the whole aircraft at Udvar-Hazy next month. That is
the plane that carried The Bomb and that ended the war, in a way
unrivaled by any other aircraft of the hundreds of thousands that flew
in harm's way from 1937 to 1945.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"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

Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

Dudley -

Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's
population is below average in intelligence (the percentage sometimes
seems higher in the newsgroups... :-)

Further, many of them were never taught (or never learned) logical
thinking, problem solving skills, or the scientific method.

Finally, many choose to make decisions based primarily on their
emotional reactions instead of rational thought.

Neither good nor bad; just the way it is.

In light of this, what you (correctly) describe is certainly not
surprising.

Happy Holidays anyway

"No Spam!" wrote in message
...
Dudley Henriques wrote:
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

Dudley -

Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's
population is below average in intelligence (the percentage sometimes
seems higher in the newsgroups... :-)

Further, many of them were never taught (or never learned) logical
thinking, problem solving skills, or the scientific method.

Finally, many choose to make decisions based primarily on their
emotional reactions instead of rational thought.

Neither good nor bad; just the way it is.

In light of this, what you (correctly) describe is certainly not
surprising.

Happy Holidays anyway

anyway!!! :-))

I should note to you that whenever I even come close to extending my comment
on this issue to include discussing what you are discussing here, I ALWAYS
stop short of where you have gone with it since where it would take me is
right into what I believe has happened in the United States educational
system....and THAT opens a large door for the usual flame responses that I'd
rather avoid if possible since it's such a controversial issue. :-))))
In short, you and I are not far apart on this at all!!! I just stopped in
the "safe" zone!!!:-))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt

On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 06:59:09 -0500, Stephen Harding wrote:

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

That would be surrendering to terrorists (the cowardly scum who stage
such attacks are certainly terrorists). IMHO surrendering to terrorists is
not a good strategy.

Al Minyard

From: Mark and Kim Smith
Date: 12/23/2003 4:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040509020503020207010504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I read through most of those threads and I actually might be learning
something from them. ( BTW Art, keep posting your stuff too! I try to
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 can think of some reasons Bockscar never got the protests:

1) It's been on display since before such protests were popular. I doubt it got
the media coverage Enola Gay receives.

2) It's displayed in a museum dedicated to military flight.

3) Most people know the name Enola Gay not Bockscar.

4) There are people who know about the Smithsonian yet have no clue Wright Pat
even exists.

5) stuff like that there.

It's all a matter of visibility and timing.

Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

B2431 wrote:

From: Mark and Kim Smith
Date: 12/23/2003 4:07 AM Central Standard Time
Message-id:

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040509020503020207010504
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I read through most of those threads and I actually might be learning
something from them. ( BTW Art, keep posting your stuff too! I try to
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??





3) Most people know the name Enola Gay not Bockscar.


This seems to tie in to other posts where folks are just plain
uneducated about stuff. I'm referring to the original Enola Gay poster
who suggested that any B29 would do. I would assume that this person
would have no problem displaying Bockscar by the Snmithsonian. That is
until he found out what role it played back then.



It's all a matter of visibility and timing.


Which seems to me a ridiculous way to begin a protest. Like a kid on a
dirt bike only knows two ways, either all the way on or all the way
off. There is no in between!


Dan, U. S. Air Force, retired

"No Spam!" wrote:

Unfortunately, it's a little appreciated fact that half of the world's
population is below average in intelligence

I seem to be having trouble making sense out of this
statement...perhaps you could enlighten me please?...
--

-Gord.