Sorry - I'm coming late to this. If someone has already mentioned it, sorry
for the repeat - you have "Judgement at the Smithsonian" which is the actual
script they wanted to use (I'm guessing). You might also want to get ahold
of the "Washington Post" articles for the time in and around the major time
of debate. There are some particularly interesting articles about the
Veterans and the Smithsonian's response. Please remember when you judge
this: hind-sight is 20/20 and we can sit comfortably in 1996 and say "Oh,
there wouldn't have been 250,000 Americans dead on the shores of Japan had
we simply invaded," or "The Bataan Death March was just a product of the
war," or "what does the inhumane deaths of hundreds of American servicemen
aboard the Japanese "Death Ships" (if you followed the flag exhibit debate,
you know my uncle survived one of those horrible things) have to do with all
this?" I would ask you to consider one thing as you prepare for your debate:
a country that advocates and actively pursues a policy of "total war"
against an enemy has NO PLACE to whine when that enemy effects a weapon of
"total war" against them.

Amy Marshall
(sorry for being so blunt)  :)

At 01:00 PM 5/22/96 -0600, you wrote:
>
>Hello to everyone at museum-l! I am student at the University of Toledo,
>and am currently working on a history project.
>
>We are debating the cancellation of the Enola Gay exibit.  If anyone has
>any information, or articles that would be recommended, I'd appreciate it.
>My debate team is for the showing of the exibit.
>
>Thank you,
>
>Ellen Collins
>