Enola Gay restored and back together...

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mike Irwin

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2002
Messages
7,956
Location
Below the Manson-Nixon line in Virginia...
From Reuters....


"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - It carried the most destructive weapon of World War II and now the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan, is going on display at the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum.

The reassembled B-29 Superfortress was unveiled to the media on Monday in a hangar near Dulles International Airport at the museum's new annex which opens on Dec. 15.

"This airplane is a part of our history and it is a part of who we are," said Dik Daso, curator of the aeronautics division of the museum.

"First Atomic Bomb, Hiroshima, Aug. 6, 1945," are written on the side of the shiny aircraft, with its transparent cockpit nose and defensive machine guns strutting out of the tail.

The Enola Gay unleashed an atomic bomb nicknamed "Little Boy," on the Japanese port city of Hiroshima, killing more than 140,000 people and leaving tens of thousands disfigured and suffering from lingering radiation illness.

The pneumatic doors to the "bomb bay" that once held the atomic weapon were swung open for television cameras but Daso said a decision had not been made on whether to leave them open when the plane goes on public view.

The bombing was carried out on a sunny day at 8:15 a.m. from an altitude of 31,600 feet. The Enola Gay was then used as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft for the follow-up attack on Nagasaki that killed 70,000 people. Six days after that, Japan surrendered.

Nearly a decade ago, an exhibit in Washington about the atomic bomb and the Enola Gay -- named after the pilot's mother -- was met with a storm of controversy because many U.S. veterans felt the Japanese were cast as victims of U.S. aggression. A smaller, less interpretive exhibit finally opened several months later.

NO DETAILS OF CASUALTIES

The current text for the Enola Gay exhibit does not include casualty figures from Hiroshima or show any photographs of the devastation the bomb caused.

Daso told Reuters that death toll estimates varied widely and the exhibition space did not lend itself to a complicated display including details of the human cost.

"Our role is to provide, artifact and restore it (the Enola Gay) as best we can and allow people to come to see it and let it speak to them. They can come up with what it means to them. I don't need to tell them," said Daso.

The Air Force Association, which took up the cause a decade ago for veterans, said it approved of the new exhibit.

"We believe that it is historically accurate this time and we congratulate the Air and Space Museum," said Napoleon Byars of the association.

However, Japanese-American researcher Aiko Herzig said she had hoped scenes of the human impact could have been included.

"I have no objections to the Enola Gay being reassembled but to see an aircraft without the story behind it is a waste of time. We need to remind ourselves about how terrible nuclear weapons are," said Herzig.

With a wingspan of 141 feet and a gross weight of 137,500 pounds, the Enola Gay was too large and heavy to be housed at the museum's flagship building on the National Mall.

The museum has spent more than 300,000 staff hours restoring the Enola Gay, which was one of 15 B-29s modified specifically for the secret atomic bomb missions.

The planes were fitted with special engines, propellers and faster-acting bomb bay doors. They were also the first successful large-scale use of pressurized crew compartments.

The plane was donated to the Smithsonian in 1949 and was stored at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland for a while before being disassembled in 1960 and its components taken to the Smithsonian's giant storage facility in nearby Suitland.
 
...but together with the human cost of its mission.

OK, I'll include all the folks who died in Hiroshima, if right alongside it they list all the dead marines in guadacanal, the dead civilians in Nanking, and all the folks who DIDN'T die in a mainland Japan invasion.
 
Absolutely. There are old men in Japan today who believe the bomb was a gift from God to bring Japan out of the darkness. A holy fire to cleanse the Japanese of their brutal past and allow them to move forward into the future.

- Gabe
 
Not sure what you mean by peace feelers, Agricola.

US terms for Japan's surrender were very clear.

Immediate and unconditional.

No muss, no fuss, simply total capitulation.

Even after the dropping of the two atomic weapons, though, there was still a significant faction in the government and the Army (essentially the same thing by 1942, really) that wanted to contine the war, even if it meant the extermination of the Japanese race.

An Army coup, which would have placed the Emperor in "protective custody" was attempted, but for a number of reasons was failed, and Hirohito's message was broadcast to the nation, ordering the cessation of hostilities and acceptance of Japan's fate.
 
I absolutely agree with the casualty figures bit! We also need to calculate the total number of Germans killed in firefights with Shermans, and post that number along with all those M4's sitting in front of VFW's and such. I suppose it would probably also be appropriate to do that with all the other military hardware, and heck, while we're at it, we should engrave the number of people killed in car accidents on the dashboard of every new car.

Sorry for the sarcasm, it's been a long day and it's only 3PM.

Weapons of war are used to kill people, that's why they're called weapons.
 
So is getting that thing airworthy for a 60th anniversary flyover of Hiroshima out of the question?

No peace feelers, lots of people on both sides were going to die invading the Home Islands. Keep in mind that the Nipponese didn't have a great track record for surrendering in the previous four years.

As it was, the country was spared further devastation that would have attended a full scale invasion. It changed a lot of minds about war being the path to greater glory. It certainly raised awareness of atomic weapons and their fearsome potential, most likely helping to prevent their future use. It would probably do well to remember that more people died due to firebombings in Tokyo and Dresden than did in the atomic attacks. Many more died of starvation due to the ravages of the advancing German and Japanese armies.

It is good war is so terrible, lest we should grow too fond of it. -W.T. Sherman I believe said that, pretty much sums it up.

Apologize for the bombings? Yeah sure, just as soon as we hear some admission of culpability for starting their half of WWII, an apology for Pearl, Bataan Death March, Nanking, etc...
 
No need for casualty numbers. It's an "Air and Space" museum. The aircraft is an aeronautical artifact.

Anyway, you'd have to be completely ignorant of history or a complete idiot not to understand the terrible power of atomic weapons. If either is the case, there are plenty of exhibits demonstrating the effects of Hiroshima (why doesn't anybody talk about Nagasaki?) at other museums. I saw one at the UN building one time. The exhibit was very powerful.
 
The greatest tragedy of the bombing of Hiroshima was the way it's allowed the Japanese to view themselves as victims. A secondary tragedy has been the untold millions of innane assertions that Japan was about to give up without a fight, after having held on tooth and nail for worthless chunks of island thousands of miles from the motherland.

I have a feeling Agricola and those like him would have changed their views had they been preparing for the invasion of mainland Japan when the bombs were dropped.
 
"(why doesn't anybody talk about Nagasaki?)"


Who talks about the number two finisher in the Kentucky Derby 5 years ago?

Bocks Car, the B-29 that dropped the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, is on display at the Air Force Museum out at Wright-Patterson.
 
cosmoline,

oh dear me:

A secondary tragedy has been the untold millions of innane assertions that Japan was about to give up without a fight, after having held on tooth and nail for worthless chunks of island thousands of miles from the motherland.

I presume you know better than such nonentities as Nimitz, Halsey, Byrd, LeMay, Eisenhower, H.H. Arnold, MacArthur - and in any case, the point at which the Japanese were most concerned - the retention and no-blame for the Emperor - turned out not to be an issue after all.

check out: http://www.historians.org/archive/hiroshima/190645.html

plus, given the stranglehold established by US submarines and the various Fleets that had free rein around Japanese shores at the time, they could have just sat there and starved them out, to say nothing of the millions of angry young Russians tear-arsing through Manchukuo at the same time.
 
Agri,

I think, given the choice between nukes and the Russians, the Japanese would take the nukes every time... :D
 
preacherman,

yep, by three days - but they'd been building up forces for some time, and the peace feelers from Japan had convinced (if indeed he needed any more convincing) everyone's least favourite Georgian that there was easy pickings out there (despite the Kwantung Army - Japans largest).

Of course, by that stage of the war the Red Army was probably the most technologically and tactically advanced in the world; plus the Japanese had bad memories of what had happened at Khalkin-Gol. The entry of the USSR into the war against Japan would have (and did) brought about peace; IMHO the dropping of the bombs (especially the second) was more about sending messages to the USSR than it was to Japan.

edited to make a statement clearer
 
Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved countless American lives. If the Japanese hadn't been so stubborn and just surrendered, it wouldn't have been dropped. Unconditional surrender is just that, no negoatiations needed. The "blame America first" crowd always points to Hiroshima and Nagasaki as examples of why the US is so bad. Everyone that has good sense knows it was the right thing to do.
 
Agricola,

I'm not sure what your point is by invoking the names of US military leaders.

As far as I know, none of them questioned the use of the atomic bombs at the time, nor did they later, after the war.

The leaders in the Pacific were busy planning for Operation Olympic, and the leaders in Europe were busy transferring troops that would participate. If you look at the history of the Pacific War, each island closer the Americans got to Japan resulted in higher and higher casualty rates.

Add to that the toll taken by Japanese Kamakazi strikes against American ships, plus the utterly incomprehensibility of a campaign built around crashing aircraft into ships on purpose, and you may get just an inkling for the feelings that they had at that time.

As I noted, factions of the Japanese Army planned to prevent Hirohito from making the broadcast that effectively ended the war, and place him under "protective custody."

Given that the Japanese people had been, for nearly 30 years, obeying the military's orders, which were issued with the imprimature of the Emperor, nothing would have seemed to be out of the ordinary, save possibly some changes in governing figures.

Since the Emperor had never been heard by the general public, and most people had never even seen him other than in a picture, it wouldn't be out of character at all.

As for the concept of starving the Japanese out...

Hum...

Which is ETHICALLY more moral and humane, Agricola?

Starving 10 million people to death to end a war (which might take years, given the Japanese prediliction to not surrender), or inflict roughly 140,000 casualties, end the war in a matter of weeks, and begin the reconstruction of Japan?

I just :cuss:ing LOVE the concept that there's something intrinsically MORE moral about killing more people in a "traditional" and non radioactive manner than there is in killing them instantly.

Just boggles the mind.
 
"Of course, by that stage of the war the Red Army was probably the most technologically and tactically advanced in the world..."

Technologically advanced? Oh yeah, the Soviets had the technology to produce the B-29 and the atomic bomb...

Oh wait, the Soviets took until 1949 to develop the bomb, and it was only with stolen US secrets.

The B-29 they got by COPYING, down to the very last rivet, 4 B-29s that had emergency landed in Soviet space before the end of the war.

But there were those fleets of Soviet jet fighters...

Oh wait, those were German jet fighters...

Radar? Whoops, American and British, the Soviets didn't have a functionally capable home-grown radar capability until the early 1950s...

Proximity fusing, which made anti-aircraft and anti-personnel fire so much more effective? All American, baby. The Soviets didn't have anything like that until the early 1950s.

Soviet fighter and light and medium bomber aircraft were roughly on par with their American counterparts. Not technologically superior.


Tactically?

If you think the Soviets had any sophisticate tactical doctrine, you'd better think again.

You'd think that if they were so tactically advanced they would have shown it during the advances into Germany, and especially in the battle for Berlin.

Yet, it is tactical CRUDITY that nicely sums up Soviet tactics during much of WW II.

Berlin can be described rather easily -- Advance at all costs.

No thought about casualties, no real thought about concentrated attacks in weakened zones.

A simple process of attacking in roughly the same strength across the WHOLE of the front.
 
Mike,

For a start, elements of the Japanese armed forces did attempt to prevent the surrender but were stopped by other elements loyal to the Emperor. Without the dropping of the bombs (especially the second bomb), the Soviet invasion would have convinced the waverers as much as it did that further struggle was useless.

With regard to your moral question - well that was part of the plan for OLYMPIC, which had a proposed D-DAY of 1 November 1945 (for Kyushu) and six months later (Operation CORONET - for Honshu), to say nothing of the existing war situation.

We are radically drifting off topic, but whatever your beliefs those two aircraft paid a part in killing a hundred thousand people, and it should be remembered.
 
Elements...

And the point is?

It comes down to the fact that there was STILL significant resistance to the concept of surrendering.

At the point in time that the atomic bombs were dropped, there were NO definitive evidence from Japan that they were willing to accept US terms.

NONE.


"We are radically drifting off topic, but whatever your beliefs those two aircraft paid a part in killing a hundred thousand people, and it should be remembered."

You're right, they did.

But they should also be remembered for the fact that they likely SAVED the lives of perhaps upwards 1 million or more Japanese, and perhaps as many has 100,000 American and British soldiers.

It's very clear to me that the decision to use the atomic bombs was the best option available, and had the best overall moral outcome.
 
If I remember correctly, the initial firebomb raid against Tokyo (Roundhouse?) burned out 15 square miles, and, although the final count was, last I knew, still in doubt, killed more than either atomic attack. Dresden is often mentioned, but the fire raids on Japan have been submerged, somehow...

The net result of the atomics was to give the Japanese an excuse to quit: they already knew that they'd lose, but their leaders wanted it proven, and were training their civilian population to assist the military in taking as high a payment in blood that they could, regardless of cost to their own population.

I believe that the atomics saved many more lives than they took, by orders of magnitude, and so their use was justified.

It would have been justified if it minimized the allied casualty count alone, but the savings in our enemies probable casualty list would, to my mind, force the "use of" decision even harder.


So, put the "Enola Gay" on display: it's a matter of pride, not shame.

I'd skip the Hiroshima casualty list, but, if you believe that it must be displayed, then you must also support the display of the estimated casualties, military and civilian, for the invasion of the Japanese home islands.


As for me, I've already inspected a B-29, and I'd not make the trip to inspect this particular bird, although I'd hardly miss it were I in the neighborhood.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top