How to display Enola Gay and the Bomb
Tue Feb 13, 2007 11:57 pm
This is just my opinion, but I think it is reasonable. It is raised by the current site "Ollie vs Smithsonian. Could you display a B-29 as just a bomber as some have suggested, with "no politics"; maybe point out its long range, pressurized high altitude cabin, high speed or troubled engines. If so you'd be leaving out a big part of the story. And this is not any B-29, it is the one that dropped the first BOMB. From the standpoint of history, or technology, or military strategy this is a huge story. The bomb is perhaps the biggest leap in the history of weapons, so much that civilized nations are reluctant to use it, and one of the genuises, Opie, that invented it turned away. Would you display a machine gun, with mention of the hundreds of thousands killed in WWI trenches, or a V-I without mentioning the Blitz which largly attacked civilains, or a Kate or Val without mentioning Pearl Harbor? The display should be have a FACTUAL account of the Scientific effort and Secrecy of building the bomb, it's transport(USS Indianapolis) it's use on the Japanese cities and the Horrible Results of the expolsions, including the mostly civilian casualties and the later radiation sickness and death. It might compare the small size of those bombs with what developed later. Nowhwere does it need to say that we were more barbaric than the Japanese just because our scientists found it first, but you don't ignore the deaths of women and children either. You could stop there, pretty much as the CAF museum does. You could also present the issue of the moral of using the bomb, or so in in a nearby separate area. Just don't take one easy side or the other, the whole issue of it's use is a fascinating study. The idea of a million invasion casualties is a little too pat, please read posts by K5083 on the other site. I think scaring Stalin was a big reason to use the bomb. If a museum presents a story of the whole war, certainly Japanese war crimes are a big part of it and should not be soft pedaled any more than the Nazi death camps, but they are NOT the main story of the B-29. When we display a Lancaster or B-17 we don't connect the death camps directly to them. An informative factual presentation should be made.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:18 am
I don't know why opinion or politics need to show their face. All it needs to state are facts. It dropped the bomb, lots of Japanese died but they still didn't surrender, another bomb got dropped, lots more Japanese died, the war was over. They could take a lesson from the NMUSAF and the Bockscar display. There is no opinion, political agenda in stating facts. You can state facts without being slanted. No need to add in stuff like "...Japanese were horrifically murdered" or "Japanese stupidly didn't surrender after the first bomb so we did it again." Just state facts, it is our national museum and it's goal should be preserving artifacts and education you about them not making political statements or trying to get you to feel a certain way when you leave. State facts and let me make my own opinions I don't need them spoon fed to me or my kids. My kids have already been brainwashed by me 
the way that it should be.
the way that it should be.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:42 am
It’s all well and good to say "just state facts" in a museum exhibit, however history simply isn't that clear cut. I think most would agree (the way I read Bill's original comment seems to be in keeping with this idea) museums have an educational role to play in society, in addition to simply preservation. In order to perform this role they often contextualize artefacts on display through introducing competing historical interpretations of the past.
While it is easy to say "just present the facts", is a curator not shaping the message of an exhibit in the choice of what facts are presented and what facts omitted? Returning to the example of the ill fated Enola Gay exhibit on the Mall; think of the supporting artefacts that were to accompany the forward fuselage/pieces of the aircraft itself. Simply the choice of which artefacts, the order in which they are presented and the general mood of the exhibit sends a message - even if only very factual information (dates, locations, names, etc) is presented [and yes, I know that according to the original plan, there was more than this kind of factual information planned].
An artefact in a museum and its surrounding display should be presented in such a way as to encourage academic debate of historical issues. The important thing to consider in this regard is that professional, academic historians generally abstain from making overt moral judgements on the things they study. Rather they explore the reasons for what happened in the past, and provide varying and often competing interpretations. These are the debates that are often presented or at least alluded to in museum exhibits, and they become controversial when such debates are given an unintended moral and political spin.
This jump from critical historical interpretation to moral judgement appears to be the problematic issue, but as was pointed out (I believe by K5083) in the other thread, such debates can successfully be presented in displays such as the NASM's WWI exhibit. In any case, I think the easy out of arguing for "just the facts" and no interpretation/debate/discussion is to ignore a museum's role as an educational institution.
For further reading on the issue I recommend taking a look at:
Lilenthal, E.T. & Engelhardt, T. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past . New York, Owl Books: 1996.
This is a collection of articles discussing the proposed and actual Enola Gay exhibits in the mid 90s at the downtown NASM location. It provides several takes on the issues that have been bounced around in these threads and is an interesting read for the participants (and observers).
While it is easy to say "just present the facts", is a curator not shaping the message of an exhibit in the choice of what facts are presented and what facts omitted? Returning to the example of the ill fated Enola Gay exhibit on the Mall; think of the supporting artefacts that were to accompany the forward fuselage/pieces of the aircraft itself. Simply the choice of which artefacts, the order in which they are presented and the general mood of the exhibit sends a message - even if only very factual information (dates, locations, names, etc) is presented [and yes, I know that according to the original plan, there was more than this kind of factual information planned].
An artefact in a museum and its surrounding display should be presented in such a way as to encourage academic debate of historical issues. The important thing to consider in this regard is that professional, academic historians generally abstain from making overt moral judgements on the things they study. Rather they explore the reasons for what happened in the past, and provide varying and often competing interpretations. These are the debates that are often presented or at least alluded to in museum exhibits, and they become controversial when such debates are given an unintended moral and political spin.
This jump from critical historical interpretation to moral judgement appears to be the problematic issue, but as was pointed out (I believe by K5083) in the other thread, such debates can successfully be presented in displays such as the NASM's WWI exhibit. In any case, I think the easy out of arguing for "just the facts" and no interpretation/debate/discussion is to ignore a museum's role as an educational institution.
For further reading on the issue I recommend taking a look at:
Lilenthal, E.T. & Engelhardt, T. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past . New York, Owl Books: 1996.
This is a collection of articles discussing the proposed and actual Enola Gay exhibits in the mid 90s at the downtown NASM location. It provides several takes on the issues that have been bounced around in these threads and is an interesting read for the participants (and observers).
Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:58 am
The way I see it, a museum display should "read the news" in a factual manner and not interpret it. How much depth to get into is probably dependant on how much reading you think the general public is up for before boredom sets in. True enthusiasts will already know more about the display than you could ever present.
With respect to the Enola Gay or Bockscar, I suspect stating that they were the aircraft that dropped the first A-Bombs and the cities they dropped them on is enough. A little bit about the modifications required to carry the bomb and the story of the actual bombing operations would be interesting as well. I don't think an airplane museum is the proper place to explore the ethics of that action however. In a natural history museum, you won't see a display regarding the ethics of Cro-Magnon Man killing and eating animals vs. eating plants, so why would you expect anything pro or con regarding the type of bomb dropped at an airplane museum?
A museum should be a source of stimulation for further study so you can draw your own conclusion, not a mechanism to deliver a conclusion to you.
With respect to the Enola Gay or Bockscar, I suspect stating that they were the aircraft that dropped the first A-Bombs and the cities they dropped them on is enough. A little bit about the modifications required to carry the bomb and the story of the actual bombing operations would be interesting as well. I don't think an airplane museum is the proper place to explore the ethics of that action however. In a natural history museum, you won't see a display regarding the ethics of Cro-Magnon Man killing and eating animals vs. eating plants, so why would you expect anything pro or con regarding the type of bomb dropped at an airplane museum?
A museum should be a source of stimulation for further study so you can draw your own conclusion, not a mechanism to deliver a conclusion to you.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:10 am
I think that the Enola Gay and what it did needs to be presented , and needs to be presented well. What was dropped out of the Enola Gay put a perminent mark on humanity.
I think that to properly display the plane, it should be part of a display about the development of nuclear arsenals and the nuclear race. With the Enola Gay just being a part of it. The display should simply state as much as possible and be complete with all opinions, so that the general public can come to their own decisions. Leaving out any parts, or choosing to only tell some is like lying to me. Or, BDK makes a good point of saying "Just tell the facts and don't give any space for interpretation."
I don't like the idea of avoiding the subject all together.
My shiny pennies worth,
David
I think that to properly display the plane, it should be part of a display about the development of nuclear arsenals and the nuclear race. With the Enola Gay just being a part of it. The display should simply state as much as possible and be complete with all opinions, so that the general public can come to their own decisions. Leaving out any parts, or choosing to only tell some is like lying to me. Or, BDK makes a good point of saying "Just tell the facts and don't give any space for interpretation."
I don't like the idea of avoiding the subject all together.
My shiny pennies worth,
David
Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:45 am
Good (if 'hot') topic, Bill & Co!
If I may make some tangential observations.
Museums today have three ostensible purposes - to preserve (that should always be number one) to educate and to entertain. Those latter two can be in conflict of course.
There's also the background job too, often something to do with the host institution. A museum run by an armed force will be highly reluctant to do certain things which might cast a negative light on that service, or the nation. Other museums have similar restrictions - expecting, say, Disney to have a museum with a full, unbiased history of the cartoons is naive in the extreme.
Many armed forces museums have sections promoting training , or women in the force today; sometimes it's because they have a recruiting role for that service, or a need to show 'balance'. Very few have demonstrations of the effects of munitions on the human body. That'd be bad PR.
Military museums which are not service driven, such as the Imperial War Museum in the UK, the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, or the Australian War Memorial in Canberra have a different brief. Likewise a 'technical museum' like the Smithsonian has a different brief again.
I'm not pointing a finger or saying that one place is a 'good' museum and another is a 'bad' museum, but the sign over the door is going to tell you a lot more than where you are - just like when wearing the uniform you aren't supposed to bring discredit on it.
A couple of photos. These were taken recently at the Canadian War Museum - one of the latest military museums to be built in the world. They have a demonstration of the effect of a shrapnel shell - a dummy shell 'exploding' above your head and a drawing on the wall. From reading the diagram I learned something (which is the point) and it gave me a lot to think about.
The fact that the curators need to tell the story in French as well as English adds another challenge to the job. Made you think? If not, why not?
It's all too common to 'think' we 'know' our history - actually what we leaned in school is often wrong and new information has come to light since we left school. I hope we are all aware that the history of military aviation is being explored all the time - some folks here are doing a great job.
I really enjoy seeing museums in other cultures, because they challenge my comfortable assumptions, and make me think further about what I 'know'. Of course if you are uncomfortable with new ideas or changes to what you 'know' your going to make a lot of heat about it. Doesn't make you right, or them wrong.
The Smithsonian isn't a stranger to controversy over aircraft display of course. Due to the behaviour of the head of the institution, one Langley, and an argument between some chaps you might of heard of called Curtiss and the Wright brothers, the Wright Flier was held by the Science Museum in London until 1948. It's a great story of political and aviation chicanery, and no-one comes out of it with much credit. We've been here before. Have a wander on the web and see what 'facts' various people want to tell you about that one!
"Just the facts' Mam." Was that cop's slogan, but as any cop will tell you, those 'facts' are awful hard to pin down.
If I may make some tangential observations.
Museums today have three ostensible purposes - to preserve (that should always be number one) to educate and to entertain. Those latter two can be in conflict of course.
There's also the background job too, often something to do with the host institution. A museum run by an armed force will be highly reluctant to do certain things which might cast a negative light on that service, or the nation. Other museums have similar restrictions - expecting, say, Disney to have a museum with a full, unbiased history of the cartoons is naive in the extreme.
Many armed forces museums have sections promoting training , or women in the force today; sometimes it's because they have a recruiting role for that service, or a need to show 'balance'. Very few have demonstrations of the effects of munitions on the human body. That'd be bad PR.
Military museums which are not service driven, such as the Imperial War Museum in the UK, the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa, or the Australian War Memorial in Canberra have a different brief. Likewise a 'technical museum' like the Smithsonian has a different brief again.
I'm not pointing a finger or saying that one place is a 'good' museum and another is a 'bad' museum, but the sign over the door is going to tell you a lot more than where you are - just like when wearing the uniform you aren't supposed to bring discredit on it.
A couple of photos. These were taken recently at the Canadian War Museum - one of the latest military museums to be built in the world. They have a demonstration of the effect of a shrapnel shell - a dummy shell 'exploding' above your head and a drawing on the wall. From reading the diagram I learned something (which is the point) and it gave me a lot to think about.
The fact that the curators need to tell the story in French as well as English adds another challenge to the job. Made you think? If not, why not?
It's all too common to 'think' we 'know' our history - actually what we leaned in school is often wrong and new information has come to light since we left school. I hope we are all aware that the history of military aviation is being explored all the time - some folks here are doing a great job.
I really enjoy seeing museums in other cultures, because they challenge my comfortable assumptions, and make me think further about what I 'know'. Of course if you are uncomfortable with new ideas or changes to what you 'know' your going to make a lot of heat about it. Doesn't make you right, or them wrong.
The Smithsonian isn't a stranger to controversy over aircraft display of course. Due to the behaviour of the head of the institution, one Langley, and an argument between some chaps you might of heard of called Curtiss and the Wright brothers, the Wright Flier was held by the Science Museum in London until 1948. It's a great story of political and aviation chicanery, and no-one comes out of it with much credit. We've been here before. Have a wander on the web and see what 'facts' various people want to tell you about that one!
"Just the facts' Mam." Was that cop's slogan, but as any cop will tell you, those 'facts' are awful hard to pin down.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:32 am
While it is easy to say "just present the facts", is a curator not shaping the message of an exhibit in the choice of what facts are presented and what facts omitted?
It is very easy:
Aircraft type and specs B-29 etc etc
Crewmembers: Tibets etc
Mission and date: Bomb Hiroshima August 6, 1945
Modifications needed for flight: etc etc
Incidental info about how aircraft was named how many Japanese got killed and more info about Bockscar mission and then the Japanese surrendered and the war was over.
Those would all be facts that present no agenda. The problem is that too many people are so used to thinking "oh well there are a million shades of gray" that they fail to remember that some things are black and white and those are called facts.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:45 am
Geesh...enough already with all of the bickering about political this and that! Let's keep in mind that there are those simple-minded people out here in the world who go to a museum to see the planes for the beauty of them and not the politics behind them! Am I alone in this line of thinking? I have taken my son to Udvar-Hazy and NMUSAF and he does not seem scarred at all by seeing Enola Gay or Bockscar up close and personal and he does know a little of the history behind both aircraft. I just don't get it that as we as a society seem to want to go back and change history or what? What is the point in bickering about the rights and wrongs of a certain event in history? Monday morning quarterbacks! Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but if the overwhelming opinion is that history needs to be changed and the Enola Gay or any other historical artifact needs to be hiden away in a dark closet somewhere, that is a sure sign that we are not moving forward as a society, but rather backwards!
Wouldn't all of this fit into the same category as if something is on TV that we don't want our kids to see, we change the channel? If you are bothered by the Enola Gay and what she represents, then don't go to Udvar-Hazy. I think it is such a disgrace and very disrepectful of those who came before us and did the best they could with what they had and now we are so much smarter than them that we can denigrate them and what they did? I think not...but, then again, I am but a simple man.
Wouldn't all of this fit into the same category as if something is on TV that we don't want our kids to see, we change the channel? If you are bothered by the Enola Gay and what she represents, then don't go to Udvar-Hazy. I think it is such a disgrace and very disrepectful of those who came before us and did the best they could with what they had and now we are so much smarter than them that we can denigrate them and what they did? I think not...but, then again, I am but a simple man.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:55 am
The Canadian War Museum has inspired me with the dual displays. Why not display the B-29 with both Red and Blue Display signs side by side? That way you can both enjoy the display and be offended at the same time no matter what you view is.
Seems pretty simple to me...
Jim
P.S.: The Canadian War Museum is also under protest for text included in a display on Bomber Command.
Seems pretty simple to me...
Jim
P.S.: The Canadian War Museum is also under protest for text included in a display on Bomber Command.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:54 am
Well, in an odd kinda way, the NMUSAF have it a bit easier, don't they? Let's face it...Bock's Car was second.
Enola Gay will always be the flashpoint, regardless of your position. She was first. She ushered in the usage of atomic weaponry. This is why Enola Gay has been the site of more protests. Has Bock's Car ever had a similar issue?
And, just an aside, if I may. I have a bit of frustration sometimes with the civilian aspect of it. I hear the 'But what about Nanking?' and am confused. The horror visited upon Nanking (the photograph of the ashcovered child screaming is one I see in my head every time I hear the word) does not negate the fact that, for a child born in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it was just as horrific. Neither child bears the responsibility for its geographic position, nor for the horrors inflicted on any other civilians.
I guess I just strongly believe that it is possible to have empathy for what is now blithely referred to as 'colateral damage' without justifying the politics of their native land.
Enola Gay will always be the flashpoint, regardless of your position. She was first. She ushered in the usage of atomic weaponry. This is why Enola Gay has been the site of more protests. Has Bock's Car ever had a similar issue?
And, just an aside, if I may. I have a bit of frustration sometimes with the civilian aspect of it. I hear the 'But what about Nanking?' and am confused. The horror visited upon Nanking (the photograph of the ashcovered child screaming is one I see in my head every time I hear the word) does not negate the fact that, for a child born in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, it was just as horrific. Neither child bears the responsibility for its geographic position, nor for the horrors inflicted on any other civilians.
I guess I just strongly believe that it is possible to have empathy for what is now blithely referred to as 'colateral damage' without justifying the politics of their native land.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:28 am
While you are correct, I still think the NMUSAF has the better display. The just kind of say, this is what this did, and it ended the war.
Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:29 am
There is no way to display anything that will make everyone happy, that is the sad truth.
I heard similar complaints about the USS Arizona Memorial blaming the US for forcing Japan into attacking us. I was able to visit the Memorial during that same time period and what I found was a very neutral commentary on the events leading up to that attack. I think that neutrality was what was viewed as being too kind to Japan. So I came away with the idea that you need to look, read listen and make up your own mind. And try to figure out why those people crying are crying in the first place. Some folks just need to be ignored!
Tim
I heard similar complaints about the USS Arizona Memorial blaming the US for forcing Japan into attacking us. I was able to visit the Memorial during that same time period and what I found was a very neutral commentary on the events leading up to that attack. I think that neutrality was what was viewed as being too kind to Japan. So I came away with the idea that you need to look, read listen and make up your own mind. And try to figure out why those people crying are crying in the first place. Some folks just need to be ignored!
Tim
Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:04 am
AirJimL2 wrote:P.S.: The Canadian War Museum is also under protest for text included in a display on Bomber Command.
Hi Jim, can you let me know any details on that?
Red and blue's fine, but I want a green board too, plus, today, a black one...
Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:16 am
James,
Here is a very biased article:
http://www.legionmagazine.com/frontline/editorials/06-11.asp?id=print
On the other side is Hugh Halliday's piece:
Personally I tend to agree with Halliday.
Jim
Here is a very biased article:
http://www.legionmagazine.com/frontline/editorials/06-11.asp?id=print
On the other side is Hugh Halliday's piece:
Angry veterans want to censor history
The criticism of the Canadian War Museum respecting its Bomber Command display is a foolish campaign.
It centres upon a single caption without regard for the rest of the display, and ignores the entire display in the context of the Second World War exhibit. It no more maligns the veterans than critical biographies of Field Marshal Douglas Haig malign his soldiers in the First World War.
I am sure that many petition-signers and letter-writers have never looked at the exhibit at all. Some seem to look for a reason to feel insulted and to adopt the language of censorious outrage. The only people who seem to talk about veterans being accused of committing "war crimes" are those who invent the accusation for the purpose of creating a straw man to demolish.
The points that critics find objectionable have not been invented by revisionist historians (whatever they are) at the museum: They have been part of the historical discussion for decades.
I became aware of Bomber Command's chequered record in reading the official history of the Royal Australian Air Force about 1957, and saw at first hand the reaction of some veterans to the multi-volume official history of the Bomber Command (Noble Frankland and Charles Webster, 1961). One veteran condemned it on the basis of book reviews, without ever reading one of the books, and he was a member of the Air Force Historical Section.
A visible critic, Lt.-Gen. L. C. Morrison has been defending the reputation of Sir Arthur Harris and other Royal Air Force leaders since at least 1969, when he wrote a stinging review of Anthony Verrier's book The Bomber Offensive.
Is this really a debate about history, or is it about power - the power to control history through censorship?
HUGH A. HALLIDAY, Orléans
Personally I tend to agree with Halliday.
Jim
Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:51 am
The Canadian War Museum has inspired me with the dual displays. Why not display the B-29 with both Red and Blue Display signs side by side? That way you can both enjoy the display and be offended at the same time no matter what you view is.
Seems pretty simple to me...
No offense but this is perhaps the most nonsensical way to present history. There needs to be no "version" of history one for this guy and one for that guy. Maybe they should do that at the 9-11 memorial too have one sign that says "These 3,000 people needlessly died because of Muslim extremism" and another that says "These 3000 people deserved to die because of American imperialism." Why not just state facts. I know it is hard for some to wrap their head around facts because for to long we have been told that there is no such things as right and wrong and no such thing as black and white everything is just perception and the subtleties of this and that.
Ryan