![enola gay smithsonian controversy book enola gay smithsonian controversy book](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2012/08/02/51828054-copy-53b5aac5fdd3e0b1d6bad4b435e38e31cee486ce.jpg)
#ENOLA GAY SMITHSONIAN CONTROVERSY BOOK SERIES#
The second series is the Other Correspondents Series which contains the Enola Gay Controversy, Letters from the Field, Air Force Association, Correll, Engen and Hewitt, D. The CRPDEG was comprised of this small group of B-29 veterans of the Second World War seeking the restoration and proud display of the Enola Gay as an historic aircraft. Rooney, Frank Rabbitt, Pattillo, Hilton, Crouch and Potts, Nicks and Horowitz, and Adams, Heyman, Rehl and Tibbets. The first series is the Committee for the Restoration and Proper Display of the Enola Gay (CRPDEG) Series which consists of the Seven Old Men Updates, Burr’s #1 and #2 Files, Humphrey and Schuh, Cooper and Brewer, William H. The archivist identified six series in the Enola Gay controversy. The collection arrived in two accessions, and was well organized and in good condition. Burr Bennett Collection is housed in eleven manuscript boxes totaling 4.4 linear feet.
![enola gay smithsonian controversy book enola gay smithsonian controversy book](https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-OR293_bkrvde_F_20110711180808.jpg)
Burr Bennett during his lifetime supporting both his hobby and lifelong interest in the Enola Gay. These include letters, articles, petitions, clippings, newsletters, press releases, schedules, chronologies, certificates, book reviews/excerpts, transcripts, papers, pamphlets, notes, proposals, scripts, lists, minutes, surveys, essays, business cards, and color as well as black and white photographs that were created/collected by W. Newman did not consult either primary sources or relevant scholarly literature before arriving at his conclusions instead he relied heavily on a conversation with the scientist whose research was at the center of the controversy.This collection contains various items encompassing his participation in the Committee for the Restoration and Proper Display of the Enola Gay (CRPDEG). But he is guilty of the same offense in a brief but highly opinionated discussion of a complex and controversial study of the effects of radiation on workers at nuclear weapons plants. 98), for failing to conduct primary research in the records of the Strategic Bombing Survey in the process of planning the ill-fated Enola Gay exhibit in the early 1990s.
![enola gay smithsonian controversy book enola gay smithsonian controversy book](https://unebraskapress-us.imgix.net/covers/9781574888362.jpg)
He is sharply critical of curators at the Smithsonian Institution, whom he claims "bought the Nitze-Blackett narrative in toto" (p. Worse, Newman occasionally applies a double standard in making his judgments. Bernstein, with doctrinaire revisionists. The best chapter in the book deals in an informed and discerning way with the morality of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.īut Newman fails to employ the same analytical skills in his discussion of the traditional position on the use of the bomb he turns a blind eye to the fallacies, or at least the uncertainties, of the "official narrative." Further, he does a serious injustice to scholars who stand between the polar extremes by lumping them, with the partial exception of Barton J. He is equally persuasive in pointing out the flaws and distortions in the revisionist view of President Truman's decision.
![enola gay smithsonian controversy book enola gay smithsonian controversy book](https://cdn.britannica.com/32/133832-050-35B6D1F2/Enola-Gay.jpg)
Newman demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Nitze's conclusions were not consistent with the evidence the Strategic Bombing Survey collected from high-ranking Japanese officials. Blackett contended in a 1948 book that the United States dropped the bomb more to intimidate the Soviet Union than to defeat the Japanese. Blackett laid the foundations for what later became the revisionist interpretation by challenging the "official narrative." Nitze concluded in the 1946 report of the United States Strategic Bombing Survey that Japan would have surrendered by 31 December 1945 without the use of the atomic bomb, the invasion of Japan, or Soviet entry into the war. Newman shows that the competing positions over using the bomb emerged within a short time after World War II. But the book still has value as a lively and engrossing summary of the views of a leading scholar in the controversy over the decision to use the bomb. There is little in it that is new or surprising Newman has aired most of his arguments in earlier articles and in a previous volume, Truman and the Hiroshima Cult (1995). At the same time, the book is partisan, contentious, and, in important respects, unconvincing. Newman's latest entry into the historiographical debate over the atomic bombing of Japan is engaging, vivid, and, in important respects, convincing.