Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Logic · Dec 16, 2003, 01:28 PM

Enola Gay display angers victims

DISGUSTING!!!!

Discuss!

SimeyTheLimey · Dec 16, 2003, 01:46 PM

This has happend before. I saw the incomplete Enola Gay at the Air and Space Museum in DC. There was a very sobor atmosphere as people viewed the plane. People aren't stupid, they know what the plane represents.

It's also a bit simplistic to think that the plane only represents victims. It also represents lives saved through bringing an awful war to an end. It's a historic plane, and it shouldn't be hidden. Moreover, what do people think any WW-II bomber represents? Are people killed by conventional bombs any less dead than people killed by a nuclear bomb?

If people want a small plaque to explain the full story, I don't see why not. But that story should include both points of view. It also shouldn't be allowed to detract from the overall museum (which I haven't yet visited). You don't need a huge display to explain the most famous plane of World War II.

petehammer · Dec 16, 2003, 02:04 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This has happend before. I saw the incomplete Enola Gay at the Air and Space Museum in DC. There was a very sobor atmosphere as people viewed the plane. People aren't stupid, they know what the plane represents.

It's also a bit simplistic to think that the plane only represents victims. It also represents lives saved through bringing an awful war to an end. It's a historic plane, and it shouldn't be hidden. Moreover, what do people think any WW-II bomber represents? Are people killed by conventional bombs any less dead than people killed by a nuclear bomb?

If people want a small plaque to explain the full story, I don't see why not. But that story should include both points of view. It also shouldn't be allowed to detract from the overall museum (which I haven't yet visited). You don't need a huge display to explain the most famous plane of World War II.

I agree... to a degree. I think the scope of the destruction of the device is important, though I agree that if you're okay with viewing other killing machines you probably shouldn't really be drawing a line.

However, the "both sides" argument I've always found pretty weak. One side is fact: we bombed and killed. The other side is pure speculation: if we hadn't have bombed, X amount of people would have died from the continuing war. We know what actually happened, and should state that.

I mean, it's REALLY hard to speculate with history because you never really know what "would" have happened, and therefore it's silly in a way to do so.

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 02:07 PM

I mostly agree with Simey.

The plane is a peice of history and has value as a museum peice. What is hard is trying to display it without dictating which context it should be viewed in--taking "sides" if you will. Some see the plane and are sobered by it. I certainly was. Others feel outraged that the display might be construed as some sort of "honor".

I would say that in it's efforts to avoid dictating the context at the exhibit, the museum has perhaps created one which seems overly devoid of context. Saying that the Enola Gay "found it's niche" overseas seems to really be straining at avoiding the obvious.

While we don't display kill counts for military museum hardware, I thik the Enola Gay is certainly not merely a novel aircraft of the era. A plaque the only points out its technical specs seems a bit hollow to me. I can understand how that might enrage some visitors.

But you can't really dictate what context people will view things in. As a truly chilling example, on one of my visits to the concentration camp at Dachau, a man was laughing through the video presentation.. It nearly caused a riot. I have no idea what was going through his mind, but it was a hard lesson in realizing that not everyone sees the same context or reacts to it the same way.

spacefreak · 02:23 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
However, the "both sides" argument I've always found pretty weak. One side is fact: we bombed and killed. The other side is pure speculation: if we hadn't have bombed, X amount of people would have died from the continuing war. We know what actually happened, and should state that.

I mean, it's REALLY hard to speculate with history because you never really know what "would" have happened, and therefore it's silly in a way to do so.

We do know that:
(1) Up to that point in WWII, the US lost well over over 290,000 lives (UK > 250,000, France > 200,000) and suffered over 650,000 casualties (UK > 350,000, France > 400,000).
(2) The war didn't last very long after the dropping of the 2 atom bombs.

I see no problem with "speculating" that plenty more American and allied lives would have been lost had the war continued.

petehammer · Dec 16, 2003, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We do know that:
(1) Up to that point in WWII, the US lost well over over 400,000 lives.
(2) The war didn't last very long after the dropping of the 2 atom bombs.

I see no problem with "speculating" that plenty more American lives would have been lost had the war continued.

But, again, you have no idea what would have happened. It's like chaos theory. A bird flapping his wings here, etc. That's why small things can make a big difference. Who knows what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs. I don't say this because I found the atomic bombs deplorable. I say, from an open mind, we don't know what would have happened.

You can guess, but even then, we don't know the myriad of events that would have transpired.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that on November 22, 1963, a man has a traffic accident in Texas. This traffic accident keeps Oswald from getting to the book depository in time, which keeps JFK alive. Imagine all the changes from there. But since that didn't happen, we have NO idea what would have happened had Kennedy not been shot.

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We do know that:
(1) Up to that point in WWII, the US lost well over over 250,000 lives (UK - 350,000, France - 200,000) and suffered over 650,000 casualties (UK - 360,000, France - 400,000).
(2) The war didn't last very long after the dropping of the 2 atom bombs.

I see no problem with "speculating" that plenty more American lives would have been lost had the war continued.

Yes, but why limit the equation to how many American lives "might" be saved?

American lives are worth how many Japanese civilians? Are mothers worth more? Children less?

I think the museum is hoping to avoid making the Enola Gay a memorial to the expendability of "enemy" lives in wartime. A plaque that remembers its victims as well as notes its role in ending the war is certainly not unreasonable.

As I said, treating it as just another period aircraft seems rather hollow. Not just to the Japanese, but to the people who had to make the decision to drop the bomb and the pilots who had to carry it out. I don't believe any of them considered it an easy option even when they decided it was necessary. I think pretending the Enola Gay is just another plane from the war trivializes that as well.

spacefreak · Dec 16, 2003, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
But, again, you have no idea what would have happened. It's like chaos theory. A bird flapping his wings here, etc. That's why small things can make a big difference. Who knows what would have happened had we not dropped the bombs. I don't say this because I found the atomic bombs deplorable. I say, from an open mind, we don't know what would have happened.

You can guess, but even then, we don't know the myriad of events that would have transpired.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that on November 22, 1963, a man has a traffic accident in Texas. This traffic accident keeps Oswald from getting to the book depository in time, which keeps JFK alive. Imagine all the changes from there. But since that didn't happen, we have NO idea what would have happened had Kennedy not been shot.

We are talking about a massive war on a grand scale continuing at it's disaterous pace, not a homicide in a US city.

You're right, no one can guarantee what would have happened. But the continuation of a deadly world war would likely have resulted in more deaths to allied soldiers.

spacefreak · Dec 16, 2003, 02:37 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Yes, but why limit the equation to how many American lives "might" be saved?

Because it was a war, I am American, my family who was serving in that war were as American, and it was Ameicans who dropped the bomb.

When engaged in war, it is imperative that my country (1) win and (2) try to limit the deaths of my countrymen. Any concern about the suffering of enemies, who are engaged in trying to kill as many of my people as possible, takes a back seat during war.

boots · Dec 16, 2003, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:

Let me give you an example. Let's say that on November 22, 1963, a man has a traffic accident in Texas. This traffic accident keeps Oswald from getting to the book depository in time, which keeps JFK alive. Imagine all the changes from there. But since that didn't happen, we have NO idea what would have happened had Kennedy not been shot.

Naw, they guys in the grassy knoll still would have gotten him...it would have just been more obvious.....

Seriously, I do get your point, but it isn't unreasonable to say that the mission was hoped to save more lives than those it was taking. Remember, if the war went on, it wasn't just allied soldiers dying. That circumvents the whole "enemies are expendable" issue too. It was a classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" risk assessment. True, we will never know what the alternate path would have led to, but we do know why we chose the one we traveled.

petehammer · Dec 16, 2003, 02:48 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
We are talking about a massive war on a grand scale continuing at it's disaterous pace, not a homicide in a US city.

You're right, no one can guarantee what would have happened. But the continuation of a deadly world war would likely have resulted in more deaths to allied soldiers.

Your argument works against you. A "massive war on a grand scale" is far more complex than a "homicide" (JFK's assassination!). Ie, little things will have an even bigger impact at that scale.

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Any concern about the suffering of enemies, who are engaged in trying to kill as many of my people as possible, takes a back seat during war.

Civilians are enemies?

Mister Elf · Dec 16, 2003, 02:50 PM

(Start Quote from article) "This is the second time I have seen the Enola Gay," said Hiroshima survivor Minoru Nishino, 71, who was two kilometres (miles) from the epicentre of the blast, and still bears scars.

"The first time was on August 6, 1945, when I saw it flying high in the sky.

"When I saw the Enola Gay today, I was overcome by anger," he said."
(End Quote)

Should've thought of that when thy attacked us at Pearl...

itai195 · 03:05 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Seriously, I do get your point, but it isn't unreasonable to say that the mission was hoped to save more lives than those it was taking. Remember, if the war went on, it wasn't just allied soldiers dying. That circumvents the whole "enemies are expendable" issue too. It was a classic case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" risk assessment. True, we will never know what the alternate path would have led to, but we do know why we chose the one we traveled.

I also don't think it's unreasonable to mention that (a) the US wasn't particularly happy with the unstable situation in Eastern Europe and Germany after the European war ended and that (b) given that the Soviets joined the Pacific war on Aug 8 (they were obligated to) it would be in the US interest to end the war before significant numbers of Soviet troops could mobilize. Sure, we know now that Washington was aware the Japanese were heavily considering surrender even before Aug 6, but it still could have taken them weeks to surrender -- certainly it could have been enough time for Soviet troops to start showing up in significant numbers... And we did have this unused, multimillion dollar weapon...

This is all OT anyway, there's nothing wrong with having the plane in a museum (it's certainly not disgusting anyway!). I think t_f is probably on the right track that a somewhat "heartless" technical display of this plane seems inappropriate. It's like if you visited a concentration camp and the exhibits only mentioned how well the gas chambers worked and how much gas they pumped in, or that this particular oven found its niche in European concentration camps...

spacefreak - I think the point t_f was making about casualties is simply that it's just as well to avoid that kind of debate in peacetime. We all know it was a war and that what seems logical during war is incomprehensible in peace, and in peace there is no point in continuing to make distinctions between American lives and Japanese. Especially not civilian lives, and especially not when every party to the war seemed to think little of the value of civilian lives.

petehammer · Dec 16, 2003, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:

Should've thought of that when thy attacked us at Pearl...

Should've thought that we would attack civilian centers after they attacked military targets? I wouldn't have thought of that.

Oh, and:

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey, set up by the War Department in 1944 to study the results of aerial attacks in the war, interviewed hundreds of Japanese civilian and military leaders after Japan surrendered, and reported just after the war:

�Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey�s opinion that certainly prior to December 31 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.�

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Because it was a war, I am American, my family who was serving in that war were as American, and it was Ameicans who dropped the bomb.

When engaged in war, it is imperative that my country (1) win and (2) try to limit the deaths of my countrymen. Any concern about the suffering of enemies, who are engaged in trying to kill as many of my people as possible, takes a back seat during war.

And how many of the civilian men, women and children of Nagasaki and Hiroshima were trying to kill as many of your people as possible?

We didn't bomb a military installation, we bombed a city.

The Enola Gay marks a rather dramatic turning point in the evolution of modern warfare. Whether or not we believe it was necessary to win, doesn't change the simple fact that the ruthless military calculus of that day decided it was best to incinerate thousands of civilians rather than risk losing the war by playing by the traditional rules against targeting civilians.

"winning at all costs" might have become a glorified concept in 21st century America, but trivializing those costs is a total disservice to those who died on both sides of the war. War happens when governments start counting human lives as cheap, not just their own but the lives of others.

Mister Elf · Dec 16, 2003, 03:01 PM

Well, the Japanese comitted an act of war. Everyone bombed civilians, not just us...

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
Well, the Japanese comitted an act of war. Everyone bombed civilians, not just us...

I don't believe anyone is trying to make a moral equivalency argument. Even if they were, I'm not sure how an unprovoked attack on a military installation compares unfavorably to the incineration of civilian population centers.

We didn't bomb them because they deserved it. We didn't bomb them because it was the right thing to do. We bombed to win. Period. It wasn't humanitarian. It wasn't merciful. We decided to end the war with a brutal, crippling blow.

I don't believe Truman took it lightly. I don't believe the pilots did either. In fact, perhaps the greatest unintended consequence of that act was that to make the costs of all out war so staggeringly high that the great nations of the world managed to avoid it for decades to come.

Now it seems that some people want to cheapen the lives that were lost or trivialize the decision to do it. That serves no one good except to protect the kind of fragile feaux-patriotism that can only love one's country by believing it incapable of regret or remorse.

Diplaying the Enola Gay should be not only about remembering how the war was ended, but at what costs.

boots · Dec 16, 2003, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
Everyone bombed civilians, not just us...

Not that that makes it right.......

Ya can't please everyone all the time. The Holocaust happened. If a Jew looks on a holocaust display and feels anger (amongst other things), I can't say I blame him/her.

Likewise, Enola Gay dropped a big bomb. If a victim looks at an Enola Gay display and feels anger (amongst other things), I can't say I blame him/her.

It is history...and an important part of it. For better or for worse, it is with us. The question then becomes how to live with it. And I'm pretty sure a plaque (no matter what it says) isn't going to help anyone live with it.

It would be nice if a plaque were presented that puts the whole thing in perspective - the good and the bad. It's history now, so people will have to judge the ethics on their own.

Mister Elf · Dec 16, 2003, 03:15 PM

I'm not trying to make it right...just stating that we should not be the only ones that are blamed for attacks on civvies.

itai195 · Dec 16, 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
I'm not trying to make it right...just stating that we should not be the only ones that are blamed for attacks on civvies.

We're not.

lil'babykitten · Dec 16, 2003, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This has happend before. I saw the incomplete Enola Gay at the Air and Space Museum in DC. There was a very sobor atmosphere as people viewed the plane. People aren't stupid, they know what the plane represents.

It's also a bit simplistic to think that the plane only represents victims. It also represents lives saved through bringing an awful war to an end. It's a historic plane, and it shouldn't be hidden. Moreover, what do people think any WW-II bomber represents? Are people killed by conventional bombs any less dead than people killed by a nuclear bomb?

If people want a small plaque to explain the full story, I don't see why not. But that story should include both points of view. It also shouldn't be allowed to detract from the overall museum (which I haven't yet visited). You don't need a huge display to explain the most famous plane of World War II.

I totally disagree.
Why in the bluest of blue hells would anyone want to go and look at a plane that was used to kill so many people? History?! WTF?! It's a symbol of massive death and destruction, nothing more.
I find it absolutely sickening.

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I totally disagree.
Why in the bluest of blue hells would anyone want to go and look at a plane that was used to kill so many people? History?! WTF?! It's a symbol of massive death and destruction, nothing more.
I find it absolutely sickening.

Why would anyone visit a holocaust museum? Or a cemetary? Or Alcatraz? Valley Forge? Little Big Horn?

I've seen the Enola Gay when it was in the Air & Space museum. It was a moving experience. It made all the issues surrounding that day come alive and mean so much more to me than simply seing a picture or reading a book.

Like I said, you can't dictate what experience people will have at the exhibit. But I hope they continue to be open about letting people see it for themselves and having their own experience.

I just wish they put it in a little clearer context than they have. The lack of context seems to be a sin of omission, IMO.

itai195 · Dec 16, 2003, 03:54 PM

Not to totally derail this thread, but I think it's pretty interesting that the Americans here seem willing to be open about their WW2 history, enough to display it in a museum for the world to contemplate. Whereas the Europeans seem to prefer covering up such artifacts and pretending they don't exist; they consider it sickening that anyone would want to see or think about them.

Or maybe you just think about the Enola Gay and all it represents often, but fail to realize that most people do not and seeing it displayed in a museum is the only way to provoke such contemplation in their minds.

petehammer · Dec 16, 2003, 04:06 PM

I think it should be displayed, but not glorified as some would have. It's a reminder of the lengths humans go, even when the actions are terrible.

boots · Dec 16, 2003, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I totally disagree.
Why in the bluest of blue hells would anyone want to go and look at a plane that was used to kill so many people? History?! WTF?! It's a symbol of massive death and destruction, nothing more.
I find it absolutely sickening.

Have you ever been to the beaches at Normandy? Standing in the cemetery was one of the most humbling, horrifying and life-giving experiences I've ever had. The visions are burned into my memory and bring me near tears just recalling them. Watching the end of "Saving Private Ryan" is pale by comparison to the actual experience.

The Enola Gay should evoke similar feelings. Terrible and wondrous at the same time. History is there to remind us of what we did wrong as much as what we did right - sometimes both at the same time. We need to embrace it and learn from it. Not glory in it, but reconcile ourselves with it. Never turn away and ignore it. THAT is why I don't agree with you on this.

lil'babykitten · Dec 16, 2003, 04:33 PM

Originally posted by boots:
Have you ever been to the beaches at Normandy? Standing in the cemetery was one of the most humbling, horrifying and life-giving experiences I've ever had. The visions are burned into my memory and bring me near tears just recalling them. Watching the end of "Saving Private Ryan" is pale by comparison to the actual experience.

The Enola Gay should evoke similar feelings. Terrible and wondrous at the same time. History is there to remind us of what we did wrong as much as what we did right - sometimes both at the same time. We need to embrace it and learn from it. Not glory in it, but reconcile ourselves with it. Never turn away and ignore it. THAT is why I don't agree with you on this.

If they were displaying it as a reminder of what was done wrong, I probably wouldn't be so against it. But apparently the text beside this particular plane talks about its "technological prowess and how it found its niche on the other side of the globe". That IMO is giving out a very bad message. As if it is something to glorify.

By no means would I be for forgetting history, I totally agree we should embrace it and learn from it, as you say. But this museum is doing a very bad job of portraying the impact this plane had. There are plenty of museums out there that are wonderful sources of history and learning. This display however is awfully unbalanced and the survivors themselves are angered by it.

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
Not to totally derail this thread, but I think it's pretty interesting that the Americans here seem willing to be open about their WW2 history, enough to display it in a museum for the world to contemplate. Whereas the Europeans seem to prefer covering up such artifacts and pretending they don't exist; they consider it sickening that anyone would want to see or think about them.

Or maybe you just think about the Enola Gay and all it represents often, but fail to realize that most people do not and seeing it displayed in a museum is the only way to provoke such contemplation in their minds.

I can't speak for all of europe, but my experiences growing up in Germany would make me disagree with you.

As I mentioned before, Dachau is an open museum. There is almost nothing about it that is behind closed doors. You can see the bunk houses, the ovens and the infamous showers. Its all there.

Germans are quite introspective and self-critical when it comes to the War. That is why they are so committed to pacifism. It also means they get pretty defensive when outsiders try to tell them their crimes, they already know all too well. They are sensative about it because it really hurts.

As an interesting side note, the mascot for the high school I attended in Munich was the mustangs. In front of the school is a massive statue of a rearing mustang that was taken from one of Hitler's parade grounds.

Millennium · Dec 16, 2003, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I totally disagree.
Why in the bluest of blue hells would anyone want to go and look at a plane that was used to kill so many people? History?! WTF?! It's a symbol of massive death and destruction, nothing more.
I find it absolutely sickening.

And even such horrific things as this have important lessons to teach us. That is why people go to look: to ensure that the lessons of that era are not forgotten, so that there might never be two planes in that exhibit instead of just one.

It's called taking the bad with the good.

boots · Dec 16, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If they were displaying it as a reminder of what was done wrong, I probably wouldn't be so against it. But apparently the text beside this particular plane talks about its "technological prowess and how it found its niche on the other side of the globe". That IMO is giving out a very bad message. As if it is something to glorify.

I'm not sure I call that "glorification," but it is rather sterile.

lil'babykitten · Dec 16, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
And even such horrific things as this have important lessons to teach us. That is why people go to look: to ensure that the lessons of that era are not forgotten, so that there might never be two planes in that exhibit instead of just one.

I can see the point several of you are trying to make. I understand the value such a display could have. This particular display just seems wrong to me.

itai195 · Dec 16, 2003, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I can't speak for all of europe, but my experiences growing up in Germany would make me disagree with you.

Well I was really just talking about the ones who happen to be posting in this thread

I don't know how one can argue against displaying the Enola Gay in a museum in an appropriate manner... I'm not sure the way it's being displayed now is that appropriate, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that it's disgusting, or that displaying the plane at all is disgusting. In fact just reading that article made me start thinking about it, I didn't even know the plane was still in existence. I'd imagine seeing it would be a very moving experience.

Millennium · Dec 16, 2003, 04:41 PM

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
If they were displaying it as a reminder of what was done wrong, I probably wouldn't be so against it. But apparently the text beside this particular plane talks about its "technological prowess and how it found its niche on the other side of the globe". That IMO is giving out a very bad message. As if it is something to glorify.

Or perhaps, it is merely an objective, just-the-facts presentation.

Take that as you will. In its own way this, too, is an important lesson: that facts alone are not all there is to an event. Display only facts, and you don't get the whole story. And yet, if you allow opinion along with fact, you no longer have a balanced presentation, adding opinion to fact inherently biases a presentation.

It is so easy to say that the dropping of the bomb was a vile thing; certainly it was. But it can be argued quite effectively that it was the lesser of two evils. If the game is to produce a balanced report, then the only winning move is to not play at all, by staying completely out of this. And yet, look where that leads us.

The moral of the story is that there are no easy answers.

boots · Dec 16, 2003, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Or perhaps, it is merely an objective, just-the-facts presentation.

[snip]

The moral of the story is that there are no easy answers.

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Millennium:
Or perhaps, it is merely an objective, just-the-facts presentation.

I understand what you're saying and I agree in principle.

But I would say that this display (according to the article) seems to be very short on facts. In fact, it seems to me that absence of certain obvious facts is, in fact, making it less objective.

So yes, the display should really strive for objectivity for exactly the reasons you state. I just think this display is rather subjection for what it leaves out.

BlackGriffen · Dec 16, 2003, 05:36 PM

There are some misconceptions in this thread I thought I should clear up. First, the claim that dropping the atomic bomb was a huge moral leap. Sorry, but it wasn't. The moral leap was already made in the firebombings of cities like Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. If you look up casualty figures for the firebombings, you'll find that their casualty counts were higher than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (possibly only barring long term radiation effects, possibly even including them).

Second, the claim that the decision was difficult is also false. If I recall correctly, Harry Truman, in his autobiography, says whether or not to drop the bomb was the easiest decision he ever made. He writes that it all came down to how many American boys would have to die in an invasion of the mainland versus ending the war post haste. I don't know whether he was considering Japanese and Russian casualties as well, but they would have certainly been higher in an invasion as well. It seems likely that peace proposals had not reached Truman's ears before he decided to drop the bomb. Slow bureaucracy or a vengeful bureaucrat could have easily done that.

BlackGriffen

thunderous_funker · Dec 16, 2003, 05:40 PM

Well, I'm grateful to be corrected but depressed at the new knowledge.

I guess I've had my own selective reading the of story to help me cope with it.

SimeyTheLimey · 06:09 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I mostly agree with Simey.

The plane is a peice of history and has value as a museum peice. What is hard is trying to display it without dictating which context it should be viewed in--taking "sides" if you will. Some see the plane and are sobered by it. I certainly was. Others feel outraged that the display might be construed as some sort of "honor".

I would say that in it's efforts to avoid dictating the context at the exhibit, the museum has perhaps created one which seems overly devoid of context. Saying that the Enola Gay "found it's niche" overseas seems to really be straining at avoiding the obvious.

While we don't display kill counts for military museum hardware, I thik the Enola Gay is certainly not merely a novel aircraft of the era. A plaque the only points out its technical specs seems a bit hollow to me. I can understand how that might enrage some visitors.

But you can't really dictate what context people will view things in. As a truly chilling example, on one of my visits to the concentration camp at Dachau, a man was laughing through the video presentation.. It nearly caused a riot. I have no idea what was going through his mind, but it was a hard lesson in realizing that not everyone sees the same context or reacts to it the same way.

I agree with this. The plane should be on display precisely because of its specific history. It's not just its technical specifications. You could have any example for that. No, it is because of its specific place in history. It ought to be soboring and in my experience from the Air and Space, it was.

I am a little surprised to hear this debate all over again. When it first went on display in 95 we heard the same issues. The victims of he bombing wanted a huge display (or just to have the plane removed) and then some US veterans complained that it seemed to make the Japanese seem like the victims of World War II. In other words, it was a huge mess.

The Smithsonian compromised with a small panel display, which I recall had photographs of the city, pictures of some of the victims, l think reproduced letters by the pilot, and a brief explanation of the history surrounding the bombing. That history legitimately includes not only the number of dead in Hiroshima, but also the enormous conventional invasion then being planned and the huge numbers of casualties that everyone at the time anticipated. You can't talk about the decision to drop the bomb without that because that is certainly what was on Truman's mind.

I don't see what would be wrong with doing that again. I think perhaps the Smithsonian thought if they just dropped the panel altogether, they could duck the issue. That's pretty naive of them. This isn't just any bomber. But having said that, there is no need to ovewhelm anyone. People aren't ignorant and you don't have to overdo it. Just a small and dignified history is fine. If people want to read more, they can and probably will. And if people want to avoid seeing it, they know how. Just don't go to Dulles.

eklipse · Dec 16, 2003, 06:13 PM

I would say, show the plane; make it abundantly clear what it did and the suffering it caused (same goes for all instruments of death); let future generations see, understand and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes of the past.

Denying or hiding from history is not healthy or helpful to anyone.

wang_himself · Dec 16, 2003, 09:19 PM

This is why i am all for stripping people of their rights. People with too much free time need to f*ck off. Back to me finals!

tie · 09:47 PM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
There are some misconceptions in this thread I thought I should clear up. First, the claim that dropping the atomic bomb was a huge moral leap. Sorry, but it wasn't. The moral leap was already made in the firebombings of cities like Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. If you look up casualty figures for the firebombings, you'll find that their casualty counts were higher than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (possibly only barring long term radiation effects, possibly even including them).

Exactly: here are some statistics. 140,000 people died at Hiroshima, 70,000 at Nagasaki three days later. 90-100,000 people had died in Tokyo five months earlier and altogether about 400,000 Japanese had died in firebombing attacks before the nuclear attacks. The rate of attacks was steadily increasing (about fivefold in five months). Japanese cities were being burned flat daily -- four cities were burned the day before Hiroshima, two more cities before Nagasaki, two more in the next few days. E.g., 40% of Tokyo had been turned to ash, 40% of Nagoya, 35% of Osaka. Amazingly, they hadn't surrendered.

I don't really understand when Americans made the moral leap. At first, the government lied or heavily distorted the truth, saying that they were firebombing military targets. People couldn't have believed this for very long, but perhaps went along with the fiction at some level. The whole thing went fairly quickly (six months). Dehumanizing of the enemy (and racism), war fatigue, and war practicalities I guess were all factors. The Japanese killed many more civilians in China, so weren't exactly innocent victims. The US were the good guys, but in that war it is pretty sobering what the "good guys" had to do.

zigzag · Dec 16, 2003, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
I think t_f is probably on the right track that a somewhat "heartless" technical display of this plane seems inappropriate. It's like if you visited a concentration camp and the exhibits only mentioned how well the gas chambers worked and how much gas they pumped in, or that this particular oven found its niche in European concentration camps...

I agree with the many comments to the effect that the EG isn't just another plane and that the display should probably provide a broader perspective. This comment just struck me as particularly poignant and, at the risk of sounding crass, funny.

Of course, if you tell the whole story, one aspect of it might be that one bomb wasn't enough to elicit a surrender - they had to drop two. While it may be that the Japanese would have eventually surrendered anyway (but is that any more knowable than the number of casualties avoided?), I think this fact is indicative of just how determined and militaristic the Japanese were at the time.

Speaking of moving displays, I found the Vietnam Memorial to be the most moving thing I've ever seen. I think it's because I remember what a painful time it was, but also because the design concept is so brilliant.

Spliffdaddy · Dec 17, 2003, 02:40 AM

Geez.

The reason EVERYBODY bombed cities during wartime way back then was because bombs weren't accurate enough to selectively target buildings - or, for that matter, specific city blocks.

When factories, bridges, airports, and other military targets were mixed within civilian areas - you got a lot of civilian casualties. The bombing was indiscriminate because that was the only way to bomb.

Most of us don't remember a time when weapons were so crude and inefficient.

I don't think anybody likes to kill civilians - or ever has. It used to be a very big part of war, the 'collateral damage'.

Be thankful. I reckon.

wang_himself · Dec 17, 2003, 03:03 AM

So why did we build the MOAB?

Millennium · Dec 17, 2003, 04:52 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I agree with this. The plane should be on display precisely because of its specific history. It's not just its technical specifications. You could have any example for that. No, it is because of its specific place in history. It ought to be soboring and in my experience from the Air and Space, it was.

The thing is, the Air and Space museum is technical by its very nature. If you want a museum to deal with the suffering, not only are there already museums to deal with this, they do a better job of it than the Air and Space museum possibly could. Consider the museum in Hiroshima: you just don't get a better exhibit of the suffering of nuclear weapons, given that you still have to put on a radiation suit to see parts of it.

The victims want an exhibit for their pain, and it is fitting that they have one. Thing is, they already do, and it's better than anything we could hope to accomplish, with or without the plane.

theolein · Dec 17, 2003, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by itai195:
... Whereas the Europeans seem to prefer covering up such artifacts and pretending they don't exist; they consider it sickening that anyone would want to see or think about them.

...

This really is not true, and it is a cheap and, if I may say so, uneducated, snipe at "The Europeans" (Here we go again) for no real reason whatsoever. There are literally thousands of war museams dotted across Europe, and it's difficult to regularly watch public broadcasting in Germany or the UK without running across some very self critical programmes on what happened in WWII. If you could watch it (It's in German, though), I would ask you to take a look at the German public channel, ZDF, which has run some very well researched programmes on WWII this and last year. They are very self critical and it really doesn't fit into the picture you painted, and seeem to be representative of, I'm sorry to say, of Germans denying their history (some of course do, but can you name me a nation that doesn't).

Spheric Harlot · Dec 17, 2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Geez.

The reason EVERYBODY bombed cities during wartime way back then was because bombs weren't accurate enough to selectively target buildings - or, for that matter, specific city blocks.

When factories, bridges, airports, and other military targets were mixed within civilian areas - you got a lot of civilian casualties. The bombing was indiscriminate because that was the only way to bomb.

That, unfortunately, is entirely untrue.

Entire cities were INTENTIONALLY levelled with the intent to "demoralize". On both sides.

You don't send 700 bombers out in a single night to destroy some industry, a harbor, and a train station.
Dresden, Coventry, Hamburg, etc., were DELIBERATE. 35,000 people lost their lives, and 800,000 people lost their homes in Hamburg in two nights in 1943, not because of stray bombs, but because of a methodically carried-out sequence of "blockbusters" that destroyed roofing and floors, exposing the flammable material and inhabitants of housing blocks, followed by firebombs, aimed in a large scale at residential areas. The allied forces called it "Dehousing", and I'm sure the German air force had a similarly despicable euphemism.

eagle's-eye view at 10,000 feet (Hamburg):

aftermath (Hamburg city center):

aftermath (Berlin):

Get your facts straight, please.

-s*

theolein · Dec 17, 2003, 06:03 AM

What is wrong with displaying the plane that dropped the first atomic bomb? Morally, in terms of sheer numbers of peope killed, it is a sickening nightmare. Never before had one single weapon been able to kill so many. On the other hand, it is the winner's country which is displaying it, and the winner of wars has historically been the one that has written the history from their perspective and displayed their swords and shields for the populace to admire.

Why do I say that? Well, while everyone is ranting on about WWII, not many know that it was the British who invented the concept of concentration camps in the Anglo-Boer war around the turn of the 19th century in South Africa. The used those camps to deny the Boer insurgents access to provisions and comfort, but allowed a fair number of the Boer population to die in the camps, most of them being women and children.

Who complains about that today? No one. Is it fair? No it isn't. Can we rise above that? It would be marvelous if we could, and that is why it would, IMO, be a good idea to include a critical display of what happened to the victims of the explosion along with the plane, if only to make people aware of just how dangerous atomic warfare is.

In this thread, and in the thread on Saddamania, it is claimed that the bomb shouldn't have been dropped, and that Japan would have surrendered anyway. The other argument is that it was war and that the allies were aiming to minimise allied casulties. I think there is also a tendency in the argument to justify one's own side and demonise the other, and let some really big factors completely forgotten on the side.

I saw a list of allied casualties posted further up, but no one seems to have thought about including the USSR in that list. I think it is entirely probable that Britain would have fallen if Hitler had not been stupid enough to do the same thing that almost lost the Germans the first world war: Start a second front in the east. Most people alive today only think of the Soviet Union as that place under communism that was the other side in the cold war, but not so many think about what the USSR did in world war 2. The eastern front sapped up Germany's strength almost completely, and more than half of the German war effort was directed there, and a good number of the 2 million German casualties of WWII (7 million including civillians) died on that front. If Germany had not invaded the USSR, all that effort would have been available for the invasion of Britain, and seeing that Britain only survived by the skin of its teeth, it is probable that they would have surrendered.

Not only that, but it would have made an invasion of Europe, as was done in 1944, next to impossible.

The USSR lost around 20 million altogether in WWII, and distinguishing between civillians and combatants is difficult as the Germans persecuted both with equal vigor. That is almost one sixth of the entire Soviet Population at the time.

And this is not even mentioning China, which suffered untold millions of dead due to the really horrific cruelty of the Japanese. China is still today unhappy with Japanese compensatory efforts. Those who think that the Japanese war started with Pearl harbor have not read their history of the Japanese conquest of China and South East Asia.

It really was all out war. Does this excuse the RAF targeted fire bombings of German cities, and they really were targeted, as the firebombs themselves were developed with the sole purpose of attacking German civillian centers and the RAF knew that this would have almost no strategic value whatsoever? No, of course it doesn't. But it was war, and vengence, I think, played a large role.

The same for the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagsaki. The USAAF could have dropped the bombs just off the coast or on the coutryside, and the effect would have been the same. There was little or no consideration taken towards enemy civillians. It was war, and vengence, as well as the wish to end the war, was also certainly on the cards. I am pretty sure that sympathy with enemy civillians played an almost non existant role in those operations. I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't a decided wish amongst military planners to "punish" the enemy for his war.

But the allies won the war. And as winners of the war they got to paint it as morally correct as they wished. It doesn't excuse anything done by any side, but it was the way things generally happened.

The tendency in modern wars is still there to write history as the winners want, but modern media has made it more important to at least give the impression that civillians are taken into account.

Saddam's murdering, rape and torture of his own people, and his war aginst Iran were certainly not done without his will, and painting him as innocent and everyone who supplied him with arms as guilty is ignoring that fact. (It is also ridiculous to point to the US as his only supplier. France, Russia, Germany, Italy, the UK and others all supplied him with arms)

If one is to learn from the Saddam and Iraq episode, it is perhaps the same thing that should have been learned from Osama and Afghanistan: That one should be far more careful and choosy about supporting some tin pot freedom fighter, dictator or even friendly government in far off countries for reasons of expediency. It seems that sort of policy has an awful habit of backfiring on one and causing the loss of many, many unecessary lives.

Sven G · Dec 17, 2003, 06:18 AM

Fuori nel mondo chiss� dove,
o su nel cielo fra gli eterni eroi,
ma nel fondo di un profondo eterno,
vive un uomo, vive il suo inferno.

La sua bocca pi� non parla,
le sue notti non le dorme pi�,
sta nascosto dietro il suo pensiero,
muore un uomo, muore senza il vero.

Il pilota di Hiroshima,
un duro alla maniera di John Wayne,
Rayban scuri, il lavoro era guerra,
ma negli occhi quel bimbo sulla terra.

Fuori nel mondo chiss� dove,
nel riflesso del cielo nello stagno,
striscia ancora la scia di vapore,
del suo aereo e di quelle ore.

Il pilota di Hiroshima...

Sente battere le ali,
sente il freddo tutto intorno a s�,
vede luci di luce pi� abbagliante,
di quel sole esploso in un istante.

... Il pilota di Hiroshima (or The Hiroshima Pilot): a beautiful song from the 1980s by Nomadi (sorry, but after much Googling I didn't find an English version of the lyrics).

War is the damnation of mankind, if we (or, rather, "they", the "powerful") continue in the same manner as in the past...

boots · Dec 17, 2003, 08:41 AM

Originally posted by BlackGriffen:
There are some misconceptions in this thread I thought I should clear up. First, the claim that dropping the atomic bomb was a huge moral leap. Sorry, but it wasn't. The moral leap was already made in the firebombings of cities like Dresden, Hamburg, and Tokyo. If you look up casualty figures for the firebombings, you'll find that their casualty counts were higher than Hiroshima or Nagasaki (possibly only barring long term radiation effects, possibly even including them).

Absolutely agree. This isn't the moral leap. I think if there is a moral leap it is the fact that one weapon could be so devastating. But that's the history of warfare. A slow lowering of the bar for what is morally acceptable. This was, perhaps, a lowering by two notches rather than one, but it wasn't simply dropping the bar to the ground.

Second, the claim that the decision was difficult is also false. If I recall correctly, Harry Truman, in his autobiography, says whether or not to drop the bomb was the easiest decision he ever made. He writes that it all came down to how many American boys would have to die in an invasion of the mainland versus ending the war post haste. I don't know whether he was considering Japanese and Russian casualties as well, but they would have certainly been higher in an invasion as well. It seems likely that peace proposals had not reached Truman's ears before he decided to drop the bomb. Slow bureaucracy or a vengeful bureaucrat could have easily done that.

BlackGriffen

I'll take exception to this only in the definition of difficult. I do not mean this was a hand-wringing slow thought process to lead to the decision. The decision (from all the accounts I've read) was made quickly. But I don't think the argument that the consequences weren't considered has much merit. Truman was horrified by what the bombs did...even though he was certain he was doing the best thing at the time. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not an "easy" place to be, even if the best course is clear.

And I agree that he probably hadn't gotten the peace proposal yet. For the same reason I said it was a difficult decision.

theolein · Dec 17, 2003, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by boots:
Absolutely agree. This isn't the moral leap. I think if there is a moral leap it is the fact that one weapon could be so devastating. But that's the history of warfare. A slow lowering of the bar for what is morally acceptable. This was, perhaps, a lowering by two notches rather than one, but it wasn't simply dropping the bar to the ground.

I'll take exception to this only in the definition of difficult. I do not mean this was a hand-wringing slow thought process to lead to the decision. The decision (from all the accounts I've read) was made quickly. But I don't think the argument that the consequences weren't considered has much merit. Truman was horrified by what the bombs did...even though he was certain he was doing the best thing at the time. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Not an "easy" place to be, even if the best course is clear.

And I agree that he probably hadn't gotten the peace proposal yet. For the same reason I said it was a difficult decision.

Well, I think that warfare and humanity have been pretty brutal throughout history. The amount of Amenians that the Turks killed in WWI was pretty horrific, and I'm sure that the ancient Romans were also not too considerate when they burnt Carthage to the ground and killed most of the population. In fact, the biggest difference has been technology. Morality has not often been of consequence in war.

The one thing that continues to puzzle me, if anyone was actually worried about what the atomic bombs did, is why they didn't drop them on the countryside, say 20 miles from a city, or just off the coast. The message would have been clear. I tend to think that my theory, that not much thought about enemy civillians was taken into account, might be more accurate.