Holly,
    AS a ten year veteran of the U.S. Army (1983 - 1993), now a graduate
student in Industrial Archaeology, I have a different perspective on the
discussion. I am 32, and grew up listening to stories of WWII and the
depression. In the Army I learned what the life of an elisted man was first
hand. Too often in academics the actual participants are overlooked as the
discussion occurs on a theoretical plane. Who owns history is a topic of
discssion today relevant to the issue.
    In the context of war, any weapon that kills the enemy while protecting
your own forces is viable. Are you going to tell the survivors of WWII to be
guilty for using Atomic weapons? If so, why not heap guilt upon the veterans
who bombed Dresdan or Tokyo with firebombs, and killed far more people. Do
you have any idea what a 155mm howitzer shell can do to an infantry soldier?
Warfare is by its nature a dirty business to be avoided, but in studying it,
and presenting it, the whole issue must be understood. The culture of the
armed forces is entirely different then American society as a whole. To
disregard the feelings of the veterans is elitest (sp?) at best.
    Perhaps the issue regarding the display of the Enoloa Gay at the
Smithsonian is a result of trying to be PC. THe other plane used to drop an
atomic bomb is (I understand) on display at Wright Patterson Air Base in
Ohio. It is displayed without comment. To me this would have been the proper
way to handle it. If I remember correctly, whic may not be, there is no
political comment on the German V1 on display, or the inhumanity of the
planes used in WWI. Where the key of the issue lies is to who(m) does
history belong, the people or academia.
    Time to get off my soap box.
 
 
    Richard A fields
    [log in to unmask]