Historic Topics on the Internet

Juxtaposition...

History topic:

The B-17 Flying Fortress

Sites studied:

www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html

www.aviation-history.com/boeing/b17.html

www.warbirdalley.com/b17.htm


For my study, I decided to use a topic I am already quite familiar with so that I could easily discern where a website may be deficient in historic facts or accuracy. I also felt it necessary to do a very broad, unscholarly search since I felt that is likely what most laymen (by that I mean, non-historian folk) would do when searching the web for a topic. By this, I mean simply using Google and going with the first few search results and not doing any serious in-depth research. So, I googled "History of the B-17." (On a side note: I love that "googled" is a verb now. My spell check did not even pick it up. How is that for a sign of the times?)

My first hit led me to Boeing's website. This was an interesting one. Boeing provides just 3 or 4 paragraphs on a plane that was the workhorse of the war. Clearly wanting to avoid controversial topics, it completely eschews missions or discussion on tonnage of bombs dropped during any campaigns. This is obviously a PR move. Instead, Boeing discusses how it answered the call when the Army was desperate for a large, multi-engine bomber. They also, of course, mention how the Flying Fortress had a reputation for being able to take "brutal poundings" and return to base with "large chunks of its fuselage shot off." These are certainly true and noteworthy facts, it is just interesting (convenient?) to see how the company who designed it focuses on its sustainability instead of its performance and overall impact on the warfront.

The Aviation History website, conversely, focused more on the battlefront than anything else. With a hefty introduction, this site discusses the various models of the B-17 and mentions the differences in each, including how many of each were built. It then goes on to broad overviews of the Flying Fortress' service in the European and Pacific theaters, breaking occasionally for some sensational stories. Also interspersed between stories is plenty of visual aid, including anything from the B-17 sitting idly on a tarmac while awaiting bomb loads to the plane in action over Europe.

My final result in this study turned out to be a shade of gray between the other two sites. Where Boeing was conservative and Aviation History was liberal with information, Warbird Alley's history of the Flying Fortress comprised of a basic history seen in the last site, but with random bits of trivia, including perhaps my most favorite factoid about the B-17--how it got its nickname. (In case you are wondering, here's the tale. During the press conference which introduced the plane to the media, a reporter exclaimed, after seeing the half-dozen guns bristling out of nearly every corner, "Holy cow, it's a flying fortress!") This is a fact about the B-17 which is not very well-known, so I felt that whoever put this historiography together really did their homework.

For fear of overanalyzing, the interesting thing about doing this assignment was that objectives were rather apparent. The latter two websites I imagine were just there to present the facts, but it was rather obvious that Boeing was crafting their historic synopsis to skirt around sensitive discussion. In a way, this is reminiscent of museum discussions we have had earlier this semester. The Enola Gay controversy or the Proper Way to Hang a Confederate Flag are good examples. When money and funding is involved, historians have to be cautious on how to present a topic. Boeing has to do the same thing so as to maintain a positive reputation with clientele.

I guess it's all about that bottom line, even when it comes to presenting history. Too bad.