6 ms·

- "Enola Gay Crew" Gross. Wiping out one hundred thousand human lives with a press of a button isn't something to make trophy memorabilia out of.

mitthrowaway2 3y ago
I had a similar reaction, although I cannot blame the crew for following orders. It does seem to change the nuance of the meaning of the signatures, though.
- perihelions 3y ago
  They're auctioning the signatures of the pilots as war memorabilia. I think that part's beyond any defense. Even if you kill someone for a legitimate reason (I'm side-stepping that), it's not moral to glorify the killing, and monetize the killing, in this way. It's just ghoulish!
  - netsharc 3y ago
    Reminds me of meeting a girl whose last name is associated with executioners (axe-wielding ones) in her home country (like Smiths were blacksmiths)... she was not enthusiastic about it. I also feel the same, owning a book with Oppenheimer's and Einstein's signatures in it would be cool, but the Enola Gay bombers? No thanks. I suppose it's the distance, the same girl above, if she was associated with the ruler that ordered the execution instead of the actual executioner, would probably not be that ashamed of the last name.
  - jedberg 3y ago
    The Holocaust museum has pieces with Hitler's signature that someone had to buy and donate. They are still important historical pieces. The money is for the historical significance, not glorification of the act.
    - perihelions 3y ago
      - "The Holocaust museum has pieces with Hitler's signature that someone had to buy and donate. They are still important historical pieces." Then, would you approve of someone auctioning Hitler signatures to private collectors, like we're seeing here? That would be a serious crime in many countries. The context matters here, and I'm not impressed that the context of this auction is a respectful and sober one—that they can hide behind "for historical purposes". E.g. - "among these are 14 scientists awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry for their monumental achievements, as well as pioneering nuclear researchers, military personnel, and Manhattan Project organizers." - "This remarkable compendium of autographs of the scientists and military men that played a role in the development of the bomb is an absolutely one-of-a-kind piece—an irreplaceable relic of the most momentous development of the 20th century." This plainly glorifies the nuclear bombings. I don't agree with your comparing this auction to Holocaust museum exhibits. They don't look similar.
- mikewarot 3y ago
  You can blame people for "just following orders", if they were unlawful. That was the point of the Nuremburg trials[1]. Here's the some of the evidence used in those trials.[2] Had the bombs not been used, it was estimated that there would have been a million soldiers wounded, and who knows how many civilians. Based on the information available to them, the crew of the Enola Gay had no reason to believe their orders unlawful. "During World War II, 1,506,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured, many in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. By the end of the war, even accounting for medals lost, stolen, or wasted, nearly 500,000 remained." [3] [1] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trials https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trial... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?400657-1/nazi-concentration-prison-camps https://www.c-span.org/video/?400657-1/nazi-concentration-pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
  - mitthrowaway2 3y ago
    This debate comes up again and again, but basically, that's a false dichotomy. The bombs could and should have been used in many other ways, not only as a surprise attack on a civilian population center, which left so few surviving witnesses that the Japanese leadership had little idea what even happened. If the goal is to force a surrender as quickly as possible, you send plenty of advance notice, invite official witnesses, say "observe, we're about to demonstrate how a single airplane can blow up an unpopulated island of your choice; consider the terms of your surrender in the meantime. If we don't hear back from you, the next one strikes a city of our choice." Or something to that extent. Of course, those kinds of decisions are way above the pay-grade of a bomber crew. So again, I certainly don't fault them. But it also feels kind of weird to treat them like celebrities.
    - jacobsenscott 3y ago
      The problem with that is you would be telling Japan where your bomber would be and at what time. So they would just thank you for the heads up and shoot it down.
Dig1t 3y ago
It might be if your father, brother, uncle, etc died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not saying I agree, but you'd probably have a different attitude if the war personally affected you.
- LeifCarrotson 3y ago
  I don't agree either. Now that technology allows individual actions to spread further, people need to learn to shut up and multiply. The attack on Pearl Harbor killed 2335 American military personnel and 68 civilians. The Little Boy bomb dropped by the Enola Gay crew on Hiroshima killed 90-140,000 Japanese, mostly civilians. The whole Asia Pacific war consumed nearly 25 million people. Or consider the ratio resulting from the terrorist attacks 22 years and 7 days ago. Those planes killed 2,977 American victims (plus 19 hijackers), then the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and caused 4.5-4.7 million deaths [1]. "You attack me, I attack you" works as foreign policy (or is at least justifiable) when your most devastating weapon is your own fists and teeth, or even as sophisticated as a stick with a rock tied to the end. To swing that stick again and again and again, for days, ending one thousand, two thousand, ten thousand times as many lives as were lost in the initial strike... That will not bring back a father, a brother, or an uncle. You might understand how a broken man might want to do that, but that can't be called justice. When your weapon is as small as Little Boy, or today as big as a network of ICBMs, and instead of standing face to face with your enemy and watching that human suffer you're pulling a bomb release from 30,000 feet or clicking a button from the other side of the world, that gut feeling of a desire for revenge, an attitude of "I want to cause pain" is not reliable. [1]: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/IndirectDeaths https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/IndirectDeat...
picture 3y ago
Do you also blame the ones who refined the metal that went into making the plane and bombs and the electronics within? What about the rivets and bolts and hinges that were part of the bomb release mechanism? The crew of Enola Gay were as much a cog in the machine as anyone else. If they refused the order to deploy the weapons, other people will. Everyone contributes to history, including your grandparents or great grandparents who quite definitely participated in the economy. Even the idea of deploying nuclear weapons were justified with the idea that it will save more American and Japanese lives should a ground operation be conducted. Blaming anything or anyone for events of history is short sighted.
- ada1981 3y ago
  “ Blaming anything or anyone for events of history is short sighted.” Surely you don’t mean that no one is responsible for anything that has happened?
  - sambazi 3y ago
    i think he means that someone else would have done it
    - firebat45 3y ago
      This is a WW2 topic so I feel okay with invoking Godwin's Law: This is the same excuse many Germans that took part in the concentration camps used. Turns out, still doesn't make genocide okay.
      - adventured 3y ago
        Killing the Empire of Japan's war machine through bombing the culture (which is actually what was occurring) into submission was in fact more than okay: it was necessary and moral. They started massive wars of conquest across Asia (the likes of which are impossible to relate to for today's generations), butchered countless millions of people in the process, allied with Nazi Germany (!), committed even worse atrocities than the Nazis, and still refused to surrender even after being nuked once (with a large political & military contingent holding out even after the second nuke). It required total war to stop them, and that obviously includes decimating their infrastructure, manufacturing, and the citizens that were responsible for manufacturing weapons (which had commonly been shifted out of large factories and dispersed into neighborhoods at smaller scale).
jedberg 3y ago
Or did they save 1,000,000 lives with the press of a button? The situation is far too complicated and nuanced to be a black and white call of "gross".
- marsa 3y ago
  imagine Russia using the same justification for dropping one on a Ukrainian city and suddenly all complexity and nuance is gone it's morally indefensible in all cases
  - irrational 3y ago
    I don’t think that is true. Russia has shown themselves to be a bad actor, like early 1900s Germany and Japan.
    - marsa 3y ago
      shown themselves to you maybe, but have in mind that post 1945 plenty of couped/invaded countries around the world could come up with a convincing case painting US as a bad actor too this is where you should search for nuance and complexity, whereas dropping a-bombs on civilians is a clear cut case of an immoral act no matter how many lives it supposedly saves
  - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
    Nope. You've proven that it's morally indefensible in at least one case. You've got a lot more proving to do before "all cases" is a valid conclusion.
    - marsa 3y ago
      it's 2/2 real world cases so 'all cases' seems like a legit conclusion to me, but if you can come with an ethical hypothetical a-bomb dropping scenario i'm all ears
      - AnimalMuppet 3y ago
burkaman 3y ago
I wouldn't really call this a trophy. They are historically significant people no matter how you feel about them, and this is a pretty tasteful way to represent that significance - just a simple signature in a topical book from their time. I also think it's a bit strange to single out the crew. They are not any more responsible (and arguably less responsible) than the physicists and bureaucrats represented here who designed and built the bomb explicitly for the purpose of dropping it on Japan.
nvy 3y ago
It might not be a happy thing to own but it's certainly historic.
mbg721 3y ago
You'll never guess what Rosie the Riveter was putting rivets into...
iancmceachern 3y ago
My grandfather was at Pearl Harbor. He was a submariner through the war, purple heart recipient, a hero. His war memorabilia which I have from him are among the most valuable possessions I own. It's not because of all the horrific things they could represent. It's because of the beautiful things they represent. The triumph over evil. It was awful, a truly awful thing to do (Hirshima and Nagasaki). But let's not forget the greater context. The US actively tried to stay out of the war, deliberately, for as long as possible and had their hand forced. I say it every December 7th, but now I'm saying it on Sept. 18th. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember my Grandfather. This book is similar. It's not for all the negative things that we remember it. It's for the positive things we've done since, despite it.
mannyv 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

mitthrowaway2 3y ago

I had a similar reaction, although I cannot blame the crew for following orders. It does seem to change the nuance of the meaning of the signatures, though.

perihelions 3y ago
They're auctioning the signatures of the pilots as war memorabilia. I think that part's beyond any defense. Even if you kill someone for a legitimate reason (I'm side-stepping that), it's not moral to glorify the killing, and monetize the killing, in this way. It's just ghoulish!
- netsharc 3y ago
  Reminds me of meeting a girl whose last name is associated with executioners (axe-wielding ones) in her home country (like Smiths were blacksmiths)... she was not enthusiastic about it. I also feel the same, owning a book with Oppenheimer's and Einstein's signatures in it would be cool, but the Enola Gay bombers? No thanks. I suppose it's the distance, the same girl above, if she was associated with the ruler that ordered the execution instead of the actual executioner, would probably not be that ashamed of the last name.
- jedberg 3y ago
  The Holocaust museum has pieces with Hitler's signature that someone had to buy and donate. They are still important historical pieces. The money is for the historical significance, not glorification of the act.
  - perihelions 3y ago
    - "The Holocaust museum has pieces with Hitler's signature that someone had to buy and donate. They are still important historical pieces." Then, would you approve of someone auctioning Hitler signatures to private collectors, like we're seeing here? That would be a serious crime in many countries. The context matters here, and I'm not impressed that the context of this auction is a respectful and sober one—that they can hide behind "for historical purposes". E.g. - "among these are 14 scientists awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics or Chemistry for their monumental achievements, as well as pioneering nuclear researchers, military personnel, and Manhattan Project organizers." - "This remarkable compendium of autographs of the scientists and military men that played a role in the development of the bomb is an absolutely one-of-a-kind piece—an irreplaceable relic of the most momentous development of the 20th century." This plainly glorifies the nuclear bombings. I don't agree with your comparing this auction to Holocaust museum exhibits. They don't look similar.
mikewarot 3y ago
You can blame people for "just following orders", if they were unlawful. That was the point of the Nuremburg trials[1]. Here's the some of the evidence used in those trials.[2] Had the bombs not been used, it was estimated that there would have been a million soldiers wounded, and who knows how many civilians. Based on the information available to them, the crew of the Enola Gay had no reason to believe their orders unlawful. "During World War II, 1,506,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured, many in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan. By the end of the war, even accounting for medals lost, stolen, or wasted, nearly 500,000 remained." [3] [1] https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trials https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/topics/nuremberg-trial... [2] https://www.c-span.org/video/?400657-1/nazi-concentration-prison-camps https://www.c-span.org/video/?400657-1/nazi-concentration-pr... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_Heart
- mitthrowaway2 3y ago
  This debate comes up again and again, but basically, that's a false dichotomy. The bombs could and should have been used in many other ways, not only as a surprise attack on a civilian population center, which left so few surviving witnesses that the Japanese leadership had little idea what even happened. If the goal is to force a surrender as quickly as possible, you send plenty of advance notice, invite official witnesses, say "observe, we're about to demonstrate how a single airplane can blow up an unpopulated island of your choice; consider the terms of your surrender in the meantime. If we don't hear back from you, the next one strikes a city of our choice." Or something to that extent. Of course, those kinds of decisions are way above the pay-grade of a bomber crew. So again, I certainly don't fault them. But it also feels kind of weird to treat them like celebrities.
  - jacobsenscott 3y ago
    The problem with that is you would be telling Japan where your bomber would be and at what time. So they would just thank you for the heads up and shoot it down.

Dig1t 3y ago

It might be if your father, brother, uncle, etc died in the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not saying I agree, but you'd probably have a different attitude if the war personally affected you.

LeifCarrotson 3y ago
I don't agree either. Now that technology allows individual actions to spread further, people need to learn to shut up and multiply. The attack on Pearl Harbor killed 2335 American military personnel and 68 civilians. The Little Boy bomb dropped by the Enola Gay crew on Hiroshima killed 90-140,000 Japanese, mostly civilians. The whole Asia Pacific war consumed nearly 25 million people. Or consider the ratio resulting from the terrorist attacks 22 years and 7 days ago. Those planes killed 2,977 American victims (plus 19 hijackers), then the US went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq and caused 4.5-4.7 million deaths [1]. "You attack me, I attack you" works as foreign policy (or is at least justifiable) when your most devastating weapon is your own fists and teeth, or even as sophisticated as a stick with a rock tied to the end. To swing that stick again and again and again, for days, ending one thousand, two thousand, ten thousand times as many lives as were lost in the initial strike... That will not bring back a father, a brother, or an uncle. You might understand how a broken man might want to do that, but that can't be called justice. When your weapon is as small as Little Boy, or today as big as a network of ICBMs, and instead of standing face to face with your enemy and watching that human suffer you're pulling a bomb release from 30,000 feet or clicking a button from the other side of the world, that gut feeling of a desire for revenge, an attitude of "I want to cause pain" is not reliable. [1]: https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/IndirectDeaths https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/2023/IndirectDeat...

picture 3y ago

Do you also blame the ones who refined the metal that went into making the plane and bombs and the electronics within? What about the rivets and bolts and hinges that were part of the bomb release mechanism? The crew of Enola Gay were as much a cog in the machine as anyone else. If they refused the order to deploy the weapons, other people will. Everyone contributes to history, including your grandparents or great grandparents who quite definitely participated in the economy. Even the idea of deploying nuclear weapons were justified with the idea that it will save more American and Japanese lives should a ground operation be conducted. Blaming anything or anyone for events of history is short sighted.

ada1981 3y ago
“ Blaming anything or anyone for events of history is short sighted.” Surely you don’t mean that no one is responsible for anything that has happened?
- sambazi 3y ago
  i think he means that someone else would have done it
  - firebat45 3y ago
    This is a WW2 topic so I feel okay with invoking Godwin's Law: This is the same excuse many Germans that took part in the concentration camps used. Turns out, still doesn't make genocide okay.
    - adventured 3y ago
      Killing the Empire of Japan's war machine through bombing the culture (which is actually what was occurring) into submission was in fact more than okay: it was necessary and moral. They started massive wars of conquest across Asia (the likes of which are impossible to relate to for today's generations), butchered countless millions of people in the process, allied with Nazi Germany (!), committed even worse atrocities than the Nazis, and still refused to surrender even after being nuked once (with a large political & military contingent holding out even after the second nuke). It required total war to stop them, and that obviously includes decimating their infrastructure, manufacturing, and the citizens that were responsible for manufacturing weapons (which had commonly been shifted out of large factories and dispersed into neighborhoods at smaller scale).

jedberg 3y ago

Or did they save 1,000,000 lives with the press of a button? The situation is far too complicated and nuanced to be a black and white call of "gross".

marsa 3y ago
imagine Russia using the same justification for dropping one on a Ukrainian city and suddenly all complexity and nuance is gone it's morally indefensible in all cases
- irrational 3y ago
  I don’t think that is true. Russia has shown themselves to be a bad actor, like early 1900s Germany and Japan.
  - marsa 3y ago
    shown themselves to you maybe, but have in mind that post 1945 plenty of couped/invaded countries around the world could come up with a convincing case painting US as a bad actor too this is where you should search for nuance and complexity, whereas dropping a-bombs on civilians is a clear cut case of an immoral act no matter how many lives it supposedly saves
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  Nope. You've proven that it's morally indefensible in at least one case. You've got a lot more proving to do before "all cases" is a valid conclusion.
  - marsa 3y ago
    it's 2/2 real world cases so 'all cases' seems like a legit conclusion to me, but if you can come with an ethical hypothetical a-bomb dropping scenario i'm all ears
    - AnimalMuppet 3y ago

burkaman 3y ago

I wouldn't really call this a trophy. They are historically significant people no matter how you feel about them, and this is a pretty tasteful way to represent that significance - just a simple signature in a topical book from their time. I also think it's a bit strange to single out the crew. They are not any more responsible (and arguably less responsible) than the physicists and bureaucrats represented here who designed and built the bomb explicitly for the purpose of dropping it on Japan.

nvy 3y ago

It might not be a happy thing to own but it's certainly historic.

mbg721 3y ago

You'll never guess what Rosie the Riveter was putting rivets into...

iancmceachern 3y ago

My grandfather was at Pearl Harbor. He was a submariner through the war, purple heart recipient, a hero. His war memorabilia which I have from him are among the most valuable possessions I own. It's not because of all the horrific things they could represent. It's because of the beautiful things they represent. The triumph over evil. It was awful, a truly awful thing to do (Hirshima and Nagasaki). But let's not forget the greater context. The US actively tried to stay out of the war, deliberately, for as long as possible and had their hand forced. I say it every December 7th, but now I'm saying it on Sept. 18th. Remember Pearl Harbor. Remember my Grandfather. This book is similar. It's not for all the negative things that we remember it. It's for the positive things we've done since, despite it.

mannyv 3y ago

[flagged]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]