This is a
transcription of the original document, which does not
reproduce well for viewing here. If you require a copy
of the original document, contact
afmag@afa.org
September 12, 1993
Dr. Martin Harwit
Director
National Air and Space Museum
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560
Dear Martin:
I thank you for letting me see the
revised planning document for the Enola Gay exhibition.
I wish I could give you a favorable reaction to it, but
the new concept does not relieve my earlier concerns
and, in some respects, it seems even less balanced –
possibly because the details are now given – than the
earlier concepts were.
The paper says the Smithsonian is
non-partisan, taking no position on the “difficult moral
and political questions” but the full text does not bear
out that statement. Similarly, you assure me that the
exhibition will “honor the bravery of the veterans,” but
that theme is virtually nonexistent in the proposal as
drafted.
The concept paper dwells, to the
effective exclusion of all else, on the horrors of war.
We agree that war is horrible, which is why the Air
Force Association has always set such great store by the
deterrence of war and has held that the nation should
not enter armed conflict until other means of resolution
are exhausted. Once war begins, casualties are
inevitable. It is less than honest to moralize about the
casualties unless one also claims the war to be immoral,
and I don’t believe many people are ready to say that
about World War II. As demonstrated by the massive
casualty toll of the Civil War, for example, extensive
death and suffering in wartime did not begin with the
Enola Gay mission.
Furthermore, the concept paper treats
Japan and United States in the war as if their
participation in the war were morally equivalent. If
anything, incredibly, it gives the benefit of opinion to
Japan, which was the aggressor. The revised concept
plans for flashback segments, including a major one on
the firebombing of Japan – emphasizing the casualties –
but there is little mention of Pearl Harbor, except to
characterize the American response as “vengeance.”
Japanese aggression and atrocities have no significant
place in this account. Artifacts seem to have been
selected for emotional value (the schoolgirl’s lunchbox,
for example) in hammering home a rather hard-line point
of view.
In this presentation, the Japanese “felt
compelled to make the ultimate sacrifice to defend the
Emperor and the nation,” victims in the defense of their
islands. I wonder if the Japanese survivors and
spokesmen describing the horrors will give equal
attention to the fact that the reason Japan needed
defending was that it had begun a war of aggression a
long way from home. How much emphasis will there be on
the refusal of the Japanese to surrender, even after the
first atomic bomb had been delivered?
It is not just a matter of fairness to
veterans – supposedly achieved by giving them the chance
to say a few words on videotapes at the end of the
exhibit. Balance is owed to all Americans, particularly
those who come tot he exhibition to learn. What they
will get from the program as described is not history or
fact but a partisan interpretation.
For these reasons I do not believe the
revised concept would be acceptable to most members of
the Air Force Association. Enclosed for your
consideration is a concept for the exhibition that we
would regard as more suitable.
If you would like to meet for lunch and
talk further, I am certainly agreeable to that, but ask
that we make it sometime in October. The annual Air
Force Association national convention is upon us, and my
days are booked wall to wall for the next few weeks.
Sincerely,
Monroe W. Hatch, Jr.
General, USAF (Ret.)
Return
to the Chronology of Controvery
