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.)