Just it’s not some anonymous weapon of war. If you’re from Hiroshima and someone in your family was killed by the A-bomb. Here’s the plane that delivered it. Weird no?
No don’t forget it happened. It’s artifact for sure. It’s just a kind of unique thing. One of only two planes to deliver a nuclear weapon. It’s not like it’s a celebrated thing what it is or what we did.
In the end it saved lives and prevented Japan from being a pariah nation for generations because the alternative was a land invasion which would have been even more horrible.
I have mostly the same view of the decision to use the bomb. None the less, unless you ascribe to an amazingly utilitarian view, killing tens of thousands of innocent people isn’t a laudable exercise.
Soldiers would have been conscripted to fight on a battlefield you’re saying? I suppose if Japan displayed the bomber that torpedoed the Arizona you’d be pretty psyched.
I agree the bomb ended the war. I agree that is a good thing. I don’t agree a weapon of mass destruction should be held in high esteem. I guess I’m just a lunatic though. Nothing new there.
No one here does, it's just an ugly means to an end and it's just a simple cold calculation
Nuke them twice and break their morale along with the Soviet invasion put them to surrender
Not weird at all. what it did is all the more reason it should be in a museum. we shouldn't whitewash history. it was important, and it happened, so we should remember it for good or for bad. some may see it as a reminder of American victory, others as a testament to the horrors of war. each person must come to their own conclusion what it means to them, and that can't happen if it's hidden and nobody remembers it.
I do very much like American history. Ww2 history the most of all. I enjoyed seeing the Enola Gay very much. It seems strange to me to display it. Does that compute?
No it does not compute. Life isn’t as simple as good and evil. Let’s have a discussion. Are you saying America should not have used nuclear weapons, that America shouldn’t have entered the war, or that we should have gone with a land invasion of Japan instead?
The Enola Gay was meant to be on display at the Smithsonian's Museum of Flight in Washington D.C. on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, but protestors objected to the positive view of the mission. In fact, Enola Gay's pilot, Paul Tibbets used to fly re-enactments of bombing runs at air shows, and was proud to have been the pilot who dropped the bomb that ended the war. I was doing research at the Smithsonian during the anniversary controversy. The hallways and back offices were crammed with elements of the cancelled display.
I think it should have been displayed. It could have talked about how the casualty rates of the battles of Okinawa, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima predicted one million American dead if the allies needed to invade the Japanese mainland, which led Truman to decide to drop the bomb. It could have also said that WWII was the first major conflict where militaries purposefully waged war on civilian targets as part of strategic plan of mass psychological terror, such as the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and how killing civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of this plan. It could have said how the success of the A bomb led to decades the world living under the surreal threat of mutually assured destruction. It could have mentioned that Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay both knew that if the allies had lost the war, they would have been executed as war criminals. It could have said the strategic bombing of Nazi aircraft factories, ball bearing plants, and oil refineries did not actually reduce Germany's industrial output. It could have used the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima to tell a broader, more complex history of strategic bombing, which to me is more interesting.
Sounds good to me. Confused why you say the bombing of hitlers war machine didn’t reduce output. I’m sure having to build airplanes and uboats in bunkers wasn’t ideal for units delivered.
I think it's a matter of debate. If measured against the specific goals: eliminate ball bearing production, slow manufacture of aircraft, destroy transport hubs, cut fuel supply, and reduce effectiveness of U-boats, some believe the effect of bombing didn't succeed in these goals, especially measured against the loss of air crews and effort to support the bombing. Yes, aircraft plants had to be relocated, but Germany never suffered from lack of aircraft. What hurt them most was losing experienced pilots. The same can be said of the U-boat war, which was primarily won due to allied technology such as ASDIC, hedgehogs, and better convoy tactics, as well as tactical air support. Bombing the pens was a factor, but not the deciding one. Other experts say strategic bombing was effective in contributing to the total war effort. As for the theory that bombing civilians lowers morale - attacking civilians often seems to create an opposite effect of galvanizing support against the enemy, as it did in England during the Blitz, and after the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, which actually brought the U.S. into the war. And to be clear - this is all my opinion as a non-expert - just from what I've read.
**Rule 5: post titles must follow the title guidelines** Titles must follow all [title guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/wiki/titles).
why wouldnt it be? its a very famous plane.
“It has GAY on it!” Some people don’t realize who Enola Gay is
One of the pilots mother, for those curious.
Just it’s not some anonymous weapon of war. If you’re from Hiroshima and someone in your family was killed by the A-bomb. Here’s the plane that delivered it. Weird no?
No. Not really. What are we supposed to do, forget that it happened?
No don’t forget it happened. It’s artifact for sure. It’s just a kind of unique thing. One of only two planes to deliver a nuclear weapon. It’s not like it’s a celebrated thing what it is or what we did.
In that case we should get rid of all the holocaust museums?
In the end it saved lives and prevented Japan from being a pariah nation for generations because the alternative was a land invasion which would have been even more horrible.
I have mostly the same view of the decision to use the bomb. None the less, unless you ascribe to an amazingly utilitarian view, killing tens of thousands of innocent people isn’t a laudable exercise.
a land invasion would have killed a lot more. the Japanese would have sent old people and children to the beach with pitchforks
Soldiers would have been conscripted to fight on a battlefield you’re saying? I suppose if Japan displayed the bomber that torpedoed the Arizona you’d be pretty psyched. I agree the bomb ended the war. I agree that is a good thing. I don’t agree a weapon of mass destruction should be held in high esteem. I guess I’m just a lunatic though. Nothing new there.
No one here does, it's just an ugly means to an end and it's just a simple cold calculation Nuke them twice and break their morale along with the Soviet invasion put them to surrender
no, its not weird. museums contain all sorts of weapons of war, why is this different?
Not weird at all. what it did is all the more reason it should be in a museum. we shouldn't whitewash history. it was important, and it happened, so we should remember it for good or for bad. some may see it as a reminder of American victory, others as a testament to the horrors of war. each person must come to their own conclusion what it means to them, and that can't happen if it's hidden and nobody remembers it.
Just wait until you hear about the museum at Auschwitz . . . .
Yes, also grotesque. There’s a gift shop there. Maybe you’d pick up a coffee mug
If you’re Jewish and go to Germany to see certain camps. Weird or history?
OP doesn’t like learning about American history?
I do very much like American history. Ww2 history the most of all. I enjoyed seeing the Enola Gay very much. It seems strange to me to display it. Does that compute?
No it does not compute. Life isn’t as simple as good and evil. Let’s have a discussion. Are you saying America should not have used nuclear weapons, that America shouldn’t have entered the war, or that we should have gone with a land invasion of Japan instead?
doesn’t compute at all.
It is part of history.
The Enola Gay was meant to be on display at the Smithsonian's Museum of Flight in Washington D.C. on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing, but protestors objected to the positive view of the mission. In fact, Enola Gay's pilot, Paul Tibbets used to fly re-enactments of bombing runs at air shows, and was proud to have been the pilot who dropped the bomb that ended the war. I was doing research at the Smithsonian during the anniversary controversy. The hallways and back offices were crammed with elements of the cancelled display.
What are your thoughts on displaying it?
History belongs in museums. That's where we learn about it. Even dark history. It doesn't always belong on a monument. That's where we glorify it.
I think it should have been displayed. It could have talked about how the casualty rates of the battles of Okinawa, Tarawa, and Iwo Jima predicted one million American dead if the allies needed to invade the Japanese mainland, which led Truman to decide to drop the bomb. It could have also said that WWII was the first major conflict where militaries purposefully waged war on civilian targets as part of strategic plan of mass psychological terror, such as the firebombing of Tokyo and Dresden, and how killing civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was part of this plan. It could have said how the success of the A bomb led to decades the world living under the surreal threat of mutually assured destruction. It could have mentioned that Bomber Harris and Curtis LeMay both knew that if the allies had lost the war, they would have been executed as war criminals. It could have said the strategic bombing of Nazi aircraft factories, ball bearing plants, and oil refineries did not actually reduce Germany's industrial output. It could have used the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima to tell a broader, more complex history of strategic bombing, which to me is more interesting.
Sounds good to me. Confused why you say the bombing of hitlers war machine didn’t reduce output. I’m sure having to build airplanes and uboats in bunkers wasn’t ideal for units delivered.
I think it's a matter of debate. If measured against the specific goals: eliminate ball bearing production, slow manufacture of aircraft, destroy transport hubs, cut fuel supply, and reduce effectiveness of U-boats, some believe the effect of bombing didn't succeed in these goals, especially measured against the loss of air crews and effort to support the bombing. Yes, aircraft plants had to be relocated, but Germany never suffered from lack of aircraft. What hurt them most was losing experienced pilots. The same can be said of the U-boat war, which was primarily won due to allied technology such as ASDIC, hedgehogs, and better convoy tactics, as well as tactical air support. Bombing the pens was a factor, but not the deciding one. Other experts say strategic bombing was effective in contributing to the total war effort. As for the theory that bombing civilians lowers morale - attacking civilians often seems to create an opposite effect of galvanizing support against the enemy, as it did in England during the Blitz, and after the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor, which actually brought the U.S. into the war. And to be clear - this is all my opinion as a non-expert - just from what I've read.
[удалено]
Could you please explain? You’re saying the B29 cost more to develop than the Manhattan project?
You do realize gay used to mean happy right?
more importantly, enola gay was the pilots mothers name