Quantcast
Channel: Atomic Heritage Foundation - Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Viewing all 25 articles
Browse latest View live

Controversy over the Enola Gay Exhibition

$
0
0
Enola Gay - Smithsonian Institute Archives

For the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II, the National Air and Space Museum (NASM) proposed an exhibition that would include displaying the Enola Gay, the B-29 Superfortress that was used to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. A fiery controversy ensued that demonstrated the competing historical narratives regarding the decision to drop the bomb.

 

Enola Gay, after the war

Following World War II, the Enola Gay had been moved around from location to location. Notably, from 1953 to 1960, its home was Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There its wings began to rust and vandals even damaged the plane. In 1961, the Enola Gay was fully disassembled and moved to the Paul E. Garber Preservation, Restoration and Storage facility for NASM.

In the 1980s, members of the 509th Composite Group asked for a proper restoration of the aircraft. Their motivations, at this time, stemmed primarily from the poor condition of the aircraft. The veterans formed “the Committee for the Restoration and Proud Display of the Enola Gay” to raise funds. Restoration efforts by the Smithsonian started on December 5, 1984. However, the museum felt “ambivalence about the plane’s eventual display,” described historian Edward T. Linenthal, who was on the advisory board of the Enola Gay exhibit.

 

Proposed Exhibition

Martin Harwit - Smithsonian Institute ArchivesIn 1987, NASM hired Martin Harwit as their new director. His vision for the museum diverged from previous directors. He wanted the museum to be a “public conscience” that would discuss topics “under public debate,” Linenthal described. This vision included his conscious decision to display the Enola Gay.

At first, the Enola Gay was planned to be displayed at an annex NASM facility near Washington Dulles International Airport. In 1977, NASM had begun discussing the need for bigger buildings to house larger modern aircrafts, and in 1980, the museum had surveyed candidates for the future annex and decided upon the Dulles Airport. This proposed annex would solve the hassle of disassemble and reassemble larger aircrafts. The Enola Gay had recently finished being renovated and the museum had been concerned about transportation and reassemble fees; therefore, the proposed annex appeared to be a fitting location. They decided to exhibit the Enola Gay at the annex, with an accompanying message about the dangers of strategic bombing and escalation.

This proposal, however, was met with some opposition in the Research Advisory Committee’s meeting on October 1988. Committee member Admiral Noel Gayler believed that any exhibition of the Enola Gay would imply “that we are celebrating the first and so far the only use of nuclear weapons against human beings.” Heeding this warning, the committee tabled the discussion and decided to first test the waters with a sixteen-month series of talks, panels, and exhibits on “Strategic Bombings in World War II.” Meanwhile the proposed annex did not receive necessary funding until 1999, from a private donation.   

At the same time, Harwit continued with his new vision for NASM with exhibitions such as “Legend, Memory and the Great War in the Air,” which was designed to clarify the myths that had arisen regarding World War I. This exhibition created some discomfort, with editors of the Wall Street Journal calling the curators “revisionist social scientists” and John T. Correll, editor of the Air Force Magazine, calling the exhibit a “strident attack on airpower in World War I” by characterizing the military aircraft as “instrument of death.” Still, Harwit pushed for a follow-up with an exhibition on World War II that would include the Enola Gay.

In December 1991, the potential for controversy of such an exhibit on WWII weighed heavily on the NASM advisory board. While they were “unanimous in agreeing that the Enola Gay is an artifact of pivotal significance and that it should be exhibited,” they asked the museum to avoid discussing the decision to drop the bomb and to consider an alternative site, such as an armed services museum.

Tom Crouch, chairman of the museum’s Aeronautics department, and lead curator Michael Neufeld led the team in charge of the exhibtion. Taking these considerations in mind, they shifted the focus of the exhibition multiple times, before finally deciding on “The Crossroads: The End of World War II, the Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War.” They also began discussions with Japan about borrowing artifacts from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to be included in the exhibit in order to present a balanced narrative.

The team completed the museum’s first script on January 1994. The script was more than three hundred pages of texts and illustrations divided into five sections: “Fight to the Finish,” “Decision to Drop the Bomb,” “Delivering the Bomb,” “Ground Zero,” and “Legacy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”

 

“Death by a thousand cuts”

In 1993, executive director of the Air Force Association (AFA) Monroe W. Hatch Jr. sent a letter to Harwit, expressing concerns that the exhibition did not present an “accurate” portrayal of the war. He argued the proposed exhibition “treats Japan and the United States…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…Japanese aggression and atrocities seem to have no significant place in this account.”

Initially, the NASM held a meeting with the AFA to discuss this concern; however, they could not reach a compromise. The NASM found the AFA’s position to be too extreme, and the AFA felt the NASM was deaf to their criticisms, said Linethal. This marked the beginning of the AFA’s formidable campaign against the exhibition.

For a detailed timeline of the controversy, see here and here.

Veterans and military groups, such as the American Legion, also began voicing their dissent. They felt that the exhibition dishonored veterans by discussing the controversy over the decision to drop the bomb and displaying graphic photos of atomic bomb victims. The Senate also unanimously proclaimed the script as “revisionist and offensive to many World War II veterans.” Interestingly, the Senate criticisms contradicted the AFA, who had acknowledged the proposed exhibition treated the men of the 509th with respect.

In response, Harwit wrote in an August 7, 1994 editorial in the Washington Post, “We want to honor the veterans who risked their lives and those who made the ultimate sacrifice…But we also must address the broader questions that concern subsequent generations—not with a view to criticizing or apologizing or displaying undue compassion for those on the ground that day, as some may fear, but to deliver an accurate portrayal that conveys the reality of the atomic war and its consequences.”

But the unrelenting media attacks and criticisms led Harwit to consult military historians, and on their recommendations, the museum produced a revised script. During the revision process, the section on the legacy of the bomb shrank dramatically, which angered Japan. Photographs of bomb victims as well as the artifacts from the bombing were largely removed from the exhibition, despite originally having been used to create a “balanced” narrative. The section on Japanese wartime atrocities was expanded.

These revisions, however, did not fully satisfy the opposing groups and sparked a new wave of criticisms. The groups asked for reinstallation of certain elements, including the photographs of Japanese victims, signing a statement that called the “historical cleansing” of the script as “unconscionable” and urged the Smithsonian to resist pressure to write “patriotically correct” history.

Ultimately, the script would be revised up to five times. But as one NASM curator accurately summarized it, at this point, the exhibition had been condemned to “death by a thousand cuts.”

 

Replacements and Resolutions

On January 30, 1995, Smithsonian Secretary Michael Heyman announced the decision to replace the exhibition with a smaller display and made the following statement:

“We made a basic error in attempting to couple an historical treatment of the use of atomic weapons with the 50th anniversary commemoration of the end of the war,” Heyman said. “In this important anniversary year, veterans and their families were expecting, and rightly so, that the nation would honor and commemorate their valor and sacrifice. They were not looking for analysis, and, frankly, we did not give enough thought to the intense feelings such an analysis would evoke."

On May 2, Harwit resigned. He said, “I believe that nothing less than my stepping down from the directorship will satisfy the Museum’s critics and allow the Museum to move forward.” He later wrote a book on the controversial exhibition.

The planned exhibition was replaced by a simple display of the fuselage of Enola Gay with little historical context. It was accompanied by a video presentation that included interviews with the crew before and after the mission. The text describing the display was limited to the history and development of the Boeing B-29 fleet. The other part of the exhibition described restoration efforts.

While the simplification of the exhibit was intended to quiet most of the criticism, especially those of the American Legion, the final exhibit did not satisfy everyone. Numerous historians and scholars, many from the "revisionist" side of the debate over the use of the atomic bombs, protested the exhibit in a letter to the Secretary of the Smithsonian on July 31, 1995.

Meanwhile, the artifacts on loan from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the graphic photos of victims were relocated to the American University Museum. This exhibition opened on July 9, 1995 with minimal protests. It was entitled “Constructing a Peaceful World: Beyond Hiroshima and Nagasaki” and was meant as a complement to a summer curriculum on nuclear war. Officials from the University stated it was not intended as a replacement for the Enola Gay exhibition at the Smithsonian.

Phil Budahn, a spokesman for the American Legion, stated in a New York Times article, "The Smithsonian is a Federal agency supported by taxpayer money, and rightly or wrongly, what it portrays is seen as the United States version of history. At American University, those constraints don't apply."

The exhibition of the fuselage ran from January 1995 to May 1998. Despite all the controversies, this exhibit drew more than a million visits in its first year alone, and a total of nearly four million visitors by the time it closed. It would be one of the most popular special exhibitions in the history of the Air and Space Museum.

 

Enola Gay Today

Enola Gay at Udvar Hazy CenterIn 2003, the Smithsonian announced the opening of the annex NASM facility Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center, by the Dulles Airport which would provide a permanent home for Enola Gay, as originally proposed back in 1988. In its two hangars, the Center displayed 80 aircraft on opening day, and today it holds 170. In its first two weeks, the Center had more than 200,000 visitors. It now averages one million visitors per year and is the most-visited museum in Virginia.

The 2003 exhibition of Enola Gay, following its trend of controversy, also raised a new round of protests, from Japanese survivors and others. Two men were even arrested for throwing red paint, which dented the plane, during protests on opening day. Yet, this time the museum did not change the exhibition. After nine years of restoration efforts and multiple storms of controversy, the fully assembled Enola Gay has found a permanent and public home.   

In comparison, Bockscar, the B-29 that dropped Fat Man on Nagasaki, had a quieter retirement. After a tour in combat in Korea, Bockscar was decommissioned and flown to the National Museum of the US Air Force on Sept. 26, 1961. This museum is located at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio and is owned by the United States Air Force. Nearby a sign describes it as “The aircraft that ended World War II.”  

Related Video: 

USA: WASHINGTON: ENOLA GAY EXHIBITION CAUSES PROTESTS

More Historical Resources: 

216th Army Air Forces Base Unit

$
0
0

The 509th Composite Group is well known as the Army Air Force unit responsible for dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Less famous, but equally important in the development of the bomb, was the “Special” 216th Army Air Forces Base Unit. At Wendover Airfield in Utah, Colonel Clifford Heflin, the head of the 216th, shared command with Colonel Paul Tibbets, the head of the 509th.

 

Organization

As the Manhattan Project progressed at Los Alamos, work began on bomb design and delivery. This process began as early as 1943, when Captain Deak Parsons was made the head of the Ordnance Division at Los Alamos. Additionally, in coordination with the Air Force, prototypes for the “Silverplate” B-29 Superfortress bombers that would eventually deliver the bombs began in earnest. In 1944, General Leslie Groves held a series of meetings with AAF General Henry Arnold, eventually agreeing, “The AAF would organize and train the requisite tactical bomb unit, which, for reasons of security, must be as self-sustaining as possible and exercise full control over delivery of bombs on the targets selected. Manhattan would receive from the AAF whatever assistance it needed in ballistic testing of bombs and air transportation of materials and equipment” (Jones 520). The two also outlined plans for a “tactical bomb unit,” which would be the 509th Composite Group, and the creation of Project Alberta, led by Deak Parsons, to work on bomb delivery.

By August 1944, Los Alamos outlined the need for test drops, particularly of the “Fat Man” plutonium design. The decision was made for a special ordnance unit, the 216th AAF, to be formed and assigned, along with the 509th, to Wendover. Under the command of Heflin (who historian Joseph Papalia described as “the second Tibbets”), the 216th was divided into two subsections. The Flight Test Section (FTS), commanded by Major Clyde “Stan” Shields, was to handle drop tests, ordnance tests, and Silverplate B-29 tests. The Special Ordnance Detachment, commanded by Captain Henry Roerkohl, was to work on the design of drop test models as well as the necessary adjustments to Silverplate equipment.

 

Testing

A "Silverplate" B-29 Bomber

Between October 1944 and August 1945, 155 test units were dropped at Wendover. Some bomb dummies were filled with cement, while others were filled with Composition B (a mixture of RDX and TNT) and painted orange, giving them the nickname “pumpkins.” Instead of a weaponeer on board during drop tests, an electronics expert was there to monitor the test unit. Darrell Dvorak, Heflin’s son-in-law, described this process as a “recurring cycle” of technological development, bomb design, drop testing, and adjustments of the planes. Norman Ramsey, a veteran of Project Alberta, recalled, “In these tests, [dummy bomb] units approaching more and more closely to the final model were tested for ballistics information, for electrical fusing information, for flight tests of electrical detonators, for test of the aircraft release mechanism, for vibration information, for assembly experience, for temperature tests, etc.”

The 216th AAF also played a role during the Trinity Test in July, as a big concern for Los Alamos scientists was their ability to take accurate measurements of the bomb’s destructive abilities. In the end, members of the 216th flew two observation planes during the test. Those on board included physicist Luis Alvarez, Parsons, Heflin, and Shields.

By late July, the 509th Composite Group had begun the process of transporting bomb materials to Tinian Island. The 216th stayed at Wendover to continue test drops and the construction of bomb components. When the war finished, the 216th was moved to Sandia Base in New Mexico, along with all bomb tooling materials and even some buildings from Wendover. Sandia was the site of further drop testing and bomb engineering for the years to come.

 

Legacy

The work of the 216th AAF is not well known in part because it was not published in the 1945 Smyth Report on the Manhattan Project. Nevertheless, the work of the 216th proved invaluable to the success of the project. The importance of drop testing and engineering cooperation would continue to be relevant as nuclear development became an important part of the Cold War.

 

Related Video: 

Darrell Dvorak's Interview

Darrell Dvorak’s father-in-law, Colonel Clifford Heflin, served as the Commanding Officer of Wendover Air Base, overseeing the management of the base as well as the ordnance and ballistics work. Darrell has published two articles on Col. Heflin's career and the Manhattan Project at Wendover: "The Other Atomic Bomb Commander" and "The First Atomic Bomb Mission." The full interview transcript can be found on "Voices of the Manhattan Project."
More Historical Resources: 

Darrell Dvorak,"The Other Atomic Bomb Commander: Colonel Cliff Heflin and his 'Special' 216th AAF Base Unit"

Darrell Dvorak,"The First Atomic Bomb Mission"

Historic Wendover Airfield Foundation

Carl Posey, "Wendover's Atomic Secret." Air & Space Magazine, March 2011.

Jones, Vincent C. Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb. Washington, DC: United States Army Center of Military History, 1985.

The Franck Report

$
0
0
Fat man.

On June 1, 1945, the Interim Committee concluded that the atomic bomb should be used as soon as possible against Japan, with no prior warning, on a target of military significance. Soon after Arthur Compton reported these findings at the Chicago Met Lab, a group of scientists led by physicist James Franck founded a committee to study the question of the bomb's use.

The Report

On June 11, the committee released its findings, which were mainly written by Eugene Rabinowitch. To begin with, the report categorically stated, “Within ten years, other countries may have nuclear bombs, each of which, weighing less than a ton, could destroy an urban area of more than ten square miles" and that “the United States, with its agglomeration of population and industry in comparatively few metropolitan districts, will be at a disadvantage compared to nations whose populations and industry are scattered over large areas.”As a result of this inevitability, the committee continued, “the use of nuclear bombs for an early unannounced attack against Japan [is] inadvisable” and that “much more favorable conditions for the eventual achievement of such an agreement could be created if nuclear bombs were first revealed to the world by a demonstration in an appropriately selected uninhabited area.”

James Franck traveled to Washington, DC to present the report to Secretary of War Henry Stimson the next day, on June 12. However, a Stimson aide untruthfully told Franck that he was away from the capital. Instead, Franck presented the report to one of the secretary's assistants. Arthur H. Compton, however, would attach a cover sheet to the report criticizing the committee members for not taking into account "the probable net saving of many lives, nor that if the bomb were not used in the present war the world would have no adequate warning as to what was to be expected if war should break out again."

It is uncertain if Stimson ever saw the Franck Report. In any event, the Interim Committee had already recommended that the bomb "be used against Japan as soon as possible... without prior warning." The Scientific Panel of the Interim Committee also concluded in its June 16 findings that "we see no acceptable alternative to direct military use." Rabinowitch would later remember “the feeling… that we were surrounded by a kind of soundproof wall so that you could write to Washington or go to Washington and talk to somebody but you never got any reaction back.”

Legacy

The failure of the Franck Report would help fuel the Szilard Petition, which argued that atomic attacks on Japan "could not be justified, at least not until the terms which will be imposed after the war on Japan were made public in detail and Japan were given an opportunity to surrender." Although the circulated petition received 67 signatures at Oak Ridge and 69 at the Chicago Met Lab, it was never seen by President Truman or Secretary Stimson before the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

The committee formed to write the Franck Report was essentially the basis of what would become the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists of Chicago, founded in September 1945. According the Bulletin’s current website, its founders “could not remain aloof to the consequences of their work.” John Simpson was the Bulletin’s first chairman and Rabinowitch was its editor until his death in 1973. In October, Rabinowitch and Simpson published an article in Life magazine titled “The Atomic Scientists Speak Up,” which claimed that scientists were morally obligated to warn the public and policy makers about the dangers of nuclear weapons.

In January 1946, Rabinowitch petitioned the government to declassify the Franck Report so that it might be published. He was given permission, but also told to censor parts of the report. The censored version was published in the Bulletin in May 1946.

Survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

$
0
0
The Hiroshima Atomic Dome, the only building left standing near the epicenter of the bombing.
By the end of 1945, the atomic bombings of Japan had killed an estimated 140,000 people at Hiroshima and 74,000 at Nagasaki, including those who died from radiation poisoning. Often lost in those numbers are the experiences of the survivors, known as hibakusha (literally “atomic bomb-affected people”).
 
 

The Bombings

On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped its first atomic bomb, a uranium gun-type bomb nicknamed “Little Boy,” on Hiroshima. It exploded with approximately 15 kilotons of force above the city of 350,000, causing a shockwave of destruction and a fireball with temperatures as hot as the sun.

Kimura Yoshihiro, in third grade at the time, saw the bomb fall from the plane. “Five or six seconds later, everything turned yellow. It was like I’d looked right at the sun. Then there was a big sound a second or two later and everything went dark” (Rotter 197). Those at the epicenter of the blast were vaporized instantly. Others suffered horrific burns or were crushed by falling buildings. Hundreds threw themselves into the nearby river to escape the fires that burned throughout the city. As Doctor Michihiko Hachiya recalled, “Hiroshima was no longer a city, but a burnt-over prairie” (199). Sadako Kurihara also expressed the aftermath in her poem “Ruins” (226):

Hiroshima after the bombing.

Hiroshima: nothing, nothing-

old and young burned to death,

city blown away,

socket without eyeball.

White bones scattered over reddish rubble;

above, sun burning down:

city of ruins, still as death.

A cathedral in Nagasaki after the bombing.

Three days later, the United States dropped a second bomb, a plutonium implosion bomb called “Fat Man,” on Nagasaki, home to an estimated 250,000 at the time. Koichi Wada, two miles away from ground zero, remembered, “The light was indescribable - an unbelievably massive light lit up the whole city.” Sumiteru Taniguchi, fourteen at the time, was blown completely off his bicycle by the force of the blast. “The earth was shaking so hard that I hung on as hard as I could so I wouldn’t get blown away” (Southard 43). Katsuji Yoshida, only a half mile from the explosion, recalled, “Blood was pouring out of my flesh. I know it sounds strange, but I felt absolutely no pain. I even forgot to cry” (48). To read more accounts from the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, click here.

The Japanese military quickly sent a three-member documentary crew to record the bombings for possible propaganda use, though there would be too much chaos to use the footage. Yamahata Yosuke, the photographer on the team, remembered, “One blessing among these unfortunate circumstances is that the resulting photographs were never used by the Japanese army… in one last misguided attempt to rouse popular support for the continuation of warfare” (79).

The surrender of Japan was announced on August 15, six days after the bombing of Nagasaki. The end of the war disenchanted the survivors. Nagasaki resident Seiji Nagano recalled, “‘Why?’ we asked. ‘After everything we did to try to win the war! What purpose did it serve? So many people died. So many homes have burned down. What will we do now? What will we do? What will we do?’” (95).

 

Immediate Aftermath

Civilian casualties at the Mitsubishi Steel Works plant (approximately 0.7 miles from ground zero) after the bombing of Hiroshima.

In the days after the bombings, families in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were advised to leave the cites. Some left with what little provisions they could find, but many had nowhere to go. They made primitive huts on the edge of the cities, or slept in train stations and burned-out train cars.

Meanwhile, symptoms of radiation poisoning began. These included hair loss, bleeding gums, loss of energy, purple spots, pain, and high fevers, often resulting in fatalities. Rumors quickly spread that the mysterious illness was contagious. Hibakusha were turned away from homes, and some farmers even refused to give them food. The Japanese government’s report on August 23 describing radiation poisoning as an “evil spirit” did not help the situation (Hogan 133). It would not be the last time the hibakusha faced discrimination.

A survivor's skin burned in the pattern of her kimono

Although Japanese doctors began to guess that the outbreak of illness was caused by radiation, they had little means for treatment or research. Doctor Tatsuichiro Akizuki compared it to the Black Death of the Middle Ages: “Life or death was a matter of chance, of fate, and the dividing line between the man being cremated and the doctor cremating him was slight” (Southard 99).

The United States, whose knowledge of radiation poisoning was only marginally better than that of the Japanese, was of little help. While Manhattan Project scientists did anticipate that the bomb would release radiation, they assumed that anyone affected by it would be killed by the blast. Furthermore, as Stafford Warren would later explain, “The chief effort at Los Alamos was devoted to the design and fabrication of a successful atomic bomb. Scientists and engineers engaged in this effort were, understandably, so immersed in their own problems that it was difficult to persuade any of them even to speculate on what the after effects of the detonation might be” (107).  Hymer Friedell, the deputy medical director at Oak Ridge, echoed these sentiments: “The idea was to explode the damned thing. . . . We weren't terribly concerned with the radiation” (Malloy).

The American lack of understanding led General Leslie Groves to dismiss reports of radiation sickness as Japanese propaganda. In a September 1945 article in The New York Times, Groves stated, “The Japanese claim that people died from radiations [sic]. If this is true, the number was very small.” In November, Groves also testified before the Senate that radiation poisoning was “without undue suffering” and “a very pleasant way to die” (Southard 113).

 

Censorship

Takashi Nagai, "the Saint of Nagasaki," in 1946

Almost immediately after the Japanese surrender, General Douglas MacArthur issued an occupation press code, restricting Japanese journalists from reporting on anything related to the bombings or the effects of radiation, and limiting foreign journalists. Official censorship would not be lifted until the end of the occupation in 1952. Additionally, the hibakusha were limited by their own self-censorship. Many felt shame because of their injuries and illness, guilt from the loss of loved ones, and, most of all, a desire to forget the past.

Nevertheless, news of the hibakusha began to spread. Australian journalist Wilfred Burchett, the first foreign journalist to visit Hiroshima after the bombings, sent his report by Morse code to London to avoid censorship. It was published in the London Daily Express, and was promptly distributed worldwide. American journalist and writer John Hersey also told the stories of six survivors in his book Hiroshima, originally published in The New Yorker in August 1946. It sold over a million copies worldwide within six months, but would be banned in Japan until 1949.

Over time, Japanese writers also began to tell the stories of the hibakusha. Doctor Takashi Nagai, a Nagasaki survivor, wrote Nagasaki no Kane (“The Bells of Nagasaki”) in 1949. Occupation officials insisted on the addition of an appendix, The Sack of Manila, with detailed information on Japanese atrocities in the Philippines in 1945. Nagai became known as the “saint of Nagasaki” for his writings and Christian faith before his eventual death from radiation poisoning in 1951.

In addition to written censorship, images of the bombings and their aftermath were strictly controlled. Documentary footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki shot by a 32-man Japanese crew was confiscated by the United States in 1946. Some of the first depictions of the bombings in Japan were therefore not photographs but drawings. Toshi and Ira Maruki, who were not at Hiroshima but rushed there soon after to find their relatives, published their collection of drawings, Pika-don (“Flash-bang”), in 1950.

 

The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission

The logo of the Atomic Bomb Casualty CommissionJapanese medical research into the effects of radiation was also strictly controlled by occupation forces. The only sanctioned research was American: the Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission (ABCC).

At the time of the bombing, very little was known about the long-term effects of radiation, which could affect a person’s health decades after the bombing. In June 1946, Lewis Weed, the head of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, brought together a group of scientists to consider the possibility of a scientific study on the survivors of the atomic bomb. The scientists recommended a “detailed and long-range study of the biological and medical effects upon the human being,” asserting that it was “of the utmost importance to the United States and mankind in general" (Lindee 32). President Truman would formally establish the ABCC in 1947.

The ABCC was officially a collaboration between the American National Research Council and the Japanese National Institute of Health. The success of the Commission was dependent on Japanese cooperation, not only from Japanese physicians but from the hibakusha as well.  It was evident from the beginning, however, that the doctors did not trust each other. As one American doctor stated, “Just the thought of what the Japanese would do if they had free unrestrained use of our data and what they might publish under the imprimatur of the ABCC gives me nightmares.” On the other side, Nagasaki doctor Nishimori Issei countered, “The ABCC’s way of doing research seemed to us full of secrets. We Japanese doctors thought it went against common sense. A doctor who finds something new while conducting research is obligated to make it public for the benefit of all human beings” (Southard 182).

An ABCC in Hiroshima.

While the Commission provided medical examinations, it did not provide medical care because its mission had a no-treatment mandate. In the 1940s, medical treatment for human subjects was uncommon in most scientific studies, and the ABCC considered diagnosis a form of treatment in and of itself. The Commission also claimed that it was protecting the economic security of local doctors, despite frequent urging from Japanese physicians to treat the survivors.

Furthermore, treatment would have violated occupation policy.  Colonel Crawford Sams, head of the Public Health and Welfare Section, told ABCC officials that they had  “no authority to request examinations, obtain specimens or do operations on Japanese patients” (Lindee 131). Treatment itself became a political issue because, in the public eye, treating the hibakusha could have constituted American atonement for the bombings.

Nevertheless, the policy was controversial within the ABCC, and in practice it was not strictly enforced. American physicians did sometimes treat the hibakusha, particularly when their work involved home visits or pediatrics. On the other hand, many of the hibakusha never received treatment, and were merely photographed and then sent home. Norman Cousins, an American activist, criticized the ABCC for the “strange spectacle of a man suffering from [radiation] sickness getting thousands of dollars’ worth of analysis but not one cent of treatment from the Commission” (Southard 184).

Needless to say, this approach angered the hibakusha. Many were also upset that the ABCC was conducting studies on the bodies of the deceased. In the end, the majority of victims were willing to participate and to allow autopsies of their loved ones because they hoped that the research would ultimately help their cause. Others, like Mineko Do-oh, remained more resistant: “I refused to cooperate because of the way I was treated. I felt like an object being kept alive for research - and my pride wouldn’t allow this to happen” (193).

The ABCC was officially disbanded in 1975. Some of its programs, such as the Life Span Study (established in 1958), were taken over by Japanese institutions and continue to track the lingering effects of radiation to this day.

 

Fighting Back

The end of censorship in 1952 brought a new opportunity for the hibakusha to tell their stories. Photographs of the bombings and its victims, such as those in Yosuke Yamahata’s Atomized Nagasaki, were finally published. Life magazine would also publish a series of photographs from the bombings in 1952, including some taken by Yamahata.

A Nagasaki survivor shares his experiences in 2007

Nevertheless, the hibakusha faced discrimination in their own society. They were denied entrance to public baths, job opportunities, and even marriage due to their status. Children with visible injuries were taunted by their classmates. Koichi Wada later explained, “A lot of rumors circulated back then that the hibakusha were carriers of serious diseases or that if two survivors got married, they would have disabled children” (Southard 204). Because of this, hibakusha often tried to hide the fact that they were survivors of the atomic bomb. Sumiteru Taniguchi recalled wearing long-sleeved shirts year round: “I didn’t want people to see my scars. I didn’t want them to gawk at me with weird expressions on their faces” (209).

Hibakusha also suffered from the long-term effects of radiation exposure. Beginning in 1947, doctors began to notice a higher incidence of leukemia as well as other cancers. Most of the conditions that the hibakusha suffered from were not covered under Japanese health care laws, while the terms of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty prevented them from suing the United States for damages.

A legal movement to provide governmental support for the hibakusha began, as well as fundraising campaigns to support the victims. The 1957 Atomic Bomb Victims Medical Care Law eventually provided some benefits, but there were stringent requirements including proof of location at the time of the bombing, which was very difficult to obtain. The Hibakusha Relief Law, passed in 1995, was more comprehensive and officially defined the hibakusha as those who were within two kilometers of the blasts or visited the bombing sites within two weeks. By this definition, there was more than a million hibakusha at the end of the war. Nevertheless, as Taniguchi explained, “The law is very hard to understand, and the procedures for applying for and receiving support from the government are very complicated” (300).

The first volume of the original Barefoot Gen

Despite discrimination, the hibakusha slowly found ways to rebuild their lives. They petitioned the American government for the confiscated video footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it was eventually released in 1967. They also petitioned for the return of the hibakusha autopsy specimens during the 1960s, and the ABCC ultimately agreed.

As the Japanese scientific community became more established after the war, the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF) was created to calculate exact dose estimates of the survivors. The Atomic Bomb Disease Institute was also established at Nagasaki University.

Perhaps most importantly, the hibakusha became more comfortable publicly expressing their experiences, and many found a new purpose in doing so. Taniguchi went on a speaking tour, explaining that he owed it to the “hundreds of thousands of people who wanted to say what I’m saying, but who died without being able to” (250).

To this end, one of the most important cultural products of the period was Keiji Nakazawa’s comic Barefoot Gen, originally published in 1972 and 1973 in the weekly magazine Shonen Jump. Nakazawa survived the bombing of Hiroshima and lost most of his family when he was six years old. Barefoot Gen is thus semi-autobiographical, and tells the story of Hiroshima from the prewar era to the aftermath of the bombing. In the end, Gen, the hero, leaves Hiroshima to go to Tokyo and become a professional cartoonist, declaring “I’ll go on living whatever it takes! I promise.” Unlike other hibakusha works, Barefoot Gen shows issues such as Japanese propaganda and restrictions on freedoms as well as postwar discrimination against the hibakusha. As Nakazawa later recalled, “It was the first time people had heard the truth. That’s what they told me everywhere I went” (Szasz 114).

 

The Anti-Nuclear Movement

Ground zero in Nagasaki.

Since the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan has been a world leader in the anti-nuclear movement. This movement was also prompted in part by American hydrogen bomb tests in the Marshall Islands in 1954. During the Castle Bravo test, the largest ever conducted by the United States, fallout reached a Japanese fishing boat named Daigo Fukuryū Maru or “Fifth Lucky Dragon,” located 80 miles east of the test site. All 23 members of the crew, as well as their catch, were exposed to radiation. One crewmember died several months later, although the cause of his death remains disputed.

The Lucky Dragon incident prompted outrage across Japan. Hiroshima mayor Shinzo Hamai declared that humans were facing “the possibility of self-extinction” and needed “total abolition of war and for the proper control of nuclear energy throughout the world” (Hogan 181). A group of Tokyo housewives started a petition to ban nuclear weapons worldwide, collecting an extraordinary 32 million signatures, roughly a third of Japan’s population at the time. The Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission’s offer of free treatment to the Lucky Dragon crew in exchange for participation in the radiation study also set off an uproar among the hibakusha, who saw this as proof that that the ABCC was using them as guinea pigs.

The Hiroshima peace bell.

The anti-nuclear movement even found its way into Japanese popular culture. In 1954, producer Tomoyuki Tanaka imagined, “What if a dinosaur sleeping in the Southern Hemisphere had been awakened and transformed into a giant by the Bomb? What if it attacked Tokyo?” (Tsutsui 15). The result was Godzilla, or Gojira in Japanese. As Tanaka would explain, “The theme of the film, from the beginning, was the terror of the Bomb. Mankind had created the Bomb, and now nature was going to take revenge on mankind” (18).

Movements for peace also began, such as the “peace declaration” read by the mayor of Nagasaki on the anniversary of the bombing every year since 1954. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Hall and the Nagasaki Peace Statue and Peace Park were opened in 1955. In 2015, the Hiroshima site received 1.5 million visitors, including more than 300,000 foreigners.

In 1955, Hiroshima also organized the First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs. Members of the hibakusha spoke at the second conference, held in Nagasaki in 1956, and press coverage of the event amplified their voices.

 

Victim Consciousness

Although the suffering of the hibakusha is without a doubt unique to them, higaishaishiki (“victim consciousness”) quickly took a central role in Japan’s collective national identity. This was foreshadowed and perhaps started by Emperor Hirohito in his radio speech announcing Japan’s surrender on August 15, 1945: “The enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.”

The Bataan Death March. Photo courtesy of the National Archives

While Germany in large part confronted and, from a national identity perspective, dealt with its crimes during World War II, Japan did not go through the same process. In establishing its post-war identity, Japan focused on the suffering of the atomic bombings rather than the atrocities it committed in the years leading up to and during the war. Japanese brutality included the invasion of Manchuria, where the infamous “Unit 731” conducted human medical experiments, POWs were used for slave labor, and thousands of women were forced into sexual slavery as “comfort women” for the Japanese Army. Equally brutal was the invasion of the Philippines, where the Bataan Death March saw the deaths of thousands of American and Filipino POWs.

The National Showa Memorial Museum in Tokyo. Photo courtesy of Nesnad on Wikimedia Commons.

The Tokyo Trials of Japanese war criminals lasted almost three times as long as those in Nuremberg, and all 25 “Class A” defendants were found guilty. The United States made use of mass media during the occupation to spread the news of Japanese war crimes, but it did not take root. While many Japanese were shocked to learn of the atrocities their army had committed, they also viewed all soldiers who saw combat as “victims” of the war and many believed the war to be legitimate self-defense.

The victim narrative persisted in large part because of political conservatism in the Japanese government under the Liberal Democratic Party. Historian John W. Dower described how “nuclear victimization spawned new forms of nationalism in postwar Japan - a neonationalism that coexists in complex ways with antimilitarism and even the ‘one-country pacifism’ long espoused by many individuals and groups associated with the political Left” (Hogan 124).

Victim consciousness was reflected, for example, in history textbooks which often shortened or completely left out Japan’s role in the war. Even the National Showa Memorial Museum, opened in 1999 in Tokyo, played down Japanese atrocities and was instead established “to commemorate Japanese suffering during and after World War II.”

 

Perceptions of the Hibakusha in the United States

Kiyoshi Tanimoto at Emory University in 1920.

For the most part, early reactions in the United States to the bombings were triumphant. Censorship meant that few stories of the survivors reached the United States. Government personnel, such as Secretary of War Henry Stimson in his article “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” defended the bombings, and it had a marked effect on public perception. As physicist Eugene Rabinowitch wrote in 1956, “With few exceptions, public opinion rejoiced over Hiroshima and Nagasaki as demonstrations of American technical ingenuity and military ascendency.”

Over time, however, the American public gained a better understanding of the experiences of the survivors. In 1955, the hibakusha were brought to national attention when a group of 25 women (dubbed the “Hiroshima Maidens”) came to the United States for reconstructive surgery. The project had its origins with Kiyoshi Tanimoto, a Methodist minister who was one of the six hibakushafeatured in John Hersey’s Hiroshima. Tanimoto sought to help the women, who suffered from extreme deformities as a result of their injuries, but plastic surgery in Japan at the time was not as advanced as in the United States. Tanimoto enlisted the help of magazine editor and activist Norman Cousins. Over the objections of the State Department, which feared that the surgeries could constitute an admission of American guilt, the Maidens came to New York City. 138 operations were performed over 18 months at Mount Sinai Hospital with mixed results; one of the women died of cardiac arrest.

Tanimoto was featured along with the two of the Maidens on an episode of This is Your Life in May 1955. Without informing his guests in advance, host Ralph Edwards arranged for Captain Robert Lewis, the co-pilot of the Enola Gay, to appear as well. An ashen-faced Tanimoto shook hands with Lewis, who appeared overcome with emotion. (It was later reported that Lewis was in fact drunk - upon hearing that he would be appearing with victims of the bombings, he was so distraught that he headed straight for the bar.)

The modified Enola Gay exhibit. Photo courtesy of the Smithsonian Institute Archives.

Following the visit of the Hiroshima Maidens, a new wave of literature and film on the bombings appeared in the United States. “Nuclear War in St. Louis,” written by anti-nuclear activists in St. Louis, was republished in Cousins’ Saturday Review in 1959. Betty Jean Lifton produced A Thousand Cranes, a documentary on children survivors, in 1970. Her husband, physician Robert Jay Lifton, also published Death in Life: Survivors of Hiroshima in 1967, featuring accounts from 70 hibakusha. As Robert Lifton later explained, “We require Hiroshima and its images to give substance to our own terrors... They have kept alive our imagination of holocaust and, perhaps, helped to keep us alive as well” (Hogan 160).

Nevertheless, the memory politics associated with the bombings remained controversial in the United States, just as they did in Japan. In 1995, a proposed Enola Gay exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum was canceled after protests from military veterans as well as heavy criticism from the media, historians, and even Congress. The exhibit had planned to show hibakusha testimonies and photographs, as well as a section on Japanese wartime atrocities.
 

Legacy

The effects of the atomic bombings of Japan continue to the present day. The very word “Hiroshima,” in Japan and in the United States, conjures images of the horrors of nuclear weapons and modern warfare. Historians, scientists, and politicians continue to debate the moral and strategic justifications of the bombings.

Aerial view of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, March 16, 2011. Photo courtesy of Digital Globe/Wikimedia Commons.

In 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi plant accident in Japan caused the worst nuclear meltdown since Chernobyl. It also prompted a major shift in the Japanese anti-nuclear movement toward protests against nuclear power, and the Japanese government is currently moving to phase out nuclear power plants completely. Victims of the accident are also called hibakusha. (Although the word uses slightly different characters than that of atomic bomb victims, in this case meaning “victims of radiation from a nuclear accident,” the two are pronounced the same.) A 2017 survey reported that 62% of the 348 Fukushima hibakusha who were interviewed have experienced discrimination.

Although in recent years Japan’s narrative stemming from victim consciousness has softened somewhat, it still exists. During his visit to Pearl Harbor in 2016, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe spoke of “the spirit of tolerance and the power of reconciliation” and offered his “sincere and everlasting condolences to the souls of those who lost their lives,” but made no apologies. Abe, a member of the Liberal Democratic Party, nevertheless faced political criticism in Japan for making the visit at all.

The memorial to Sadako Sasaki in Hiroshima

In May 2016, Barack Obama became the first U.S. president to visit Hiroshima. “We stand here in the middle of this city and force ourselves to imagine the moment the bomb fell,” he said. “We force ourselves to feel the dread of children confused by what they see. We listen to a silent cry. We remember all the innocents killed across the arc of that terrible war and the wars that came before and the wars that would follow.” Additionally, Obama called for limits on nuclear weapons, asserting, “We may not realize this goal in my lifetime, but persistent effort can roll back the possibility of catastrophe. We can chart a course that leads to the destruction of these stockpiles. We can stop the spread to new nations and secure deadly materials from fanatics.”

Obama also added two paper cranes to a memorial to Sadako Sasaki. Two years old at the time of the bombing, Sasaki became famous for folding paper cranes because of a Japanese legend that anyone who folds 1000 cranes will be granted a wish. She died from leukemia in 1955, and inspired the 1977 children’s book Sadako and the 1000 Paper Cranes. Today, paper cranes carry a symbolic importance for Japan. The Sadako Legacy, a nonprofit organization dedicated to carrying on Sasaki’s message, has donated her cranes to memorials around the world, including the World Trade Center and Pearl Harbor.

As of 2016, an estimated 174,000hibakusha remain alive today. They and their descendants still face discrimination in Japan, particularly with marriage. Many continue to conceal the truth of their history and the suffering that their families endured.

 

Related Video: 

NAHP Sumiteru Taniguchi, Former Chairman of Nagasaki Council of A-Bomb Sufferers

An interview with Sumiteru Taniguchi, a survivor of the Nagasaki bombing. Video courtesy of Nagasaki Atomic History and the Present.
More Historical Resources: 

Dower, John W. Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 1999.

Dower, John W. Ways of Forgetting, Ways of Remembering: Japan in the Modern World. New York, NY: The New Press, 2012.

Hersey, John. Hiroshima. New York, NY: Random House, 1989.

Hogan, Michael J. Hiroshima in History and Memory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

Lindee, Susan M. Suffering Made Real: American Science and the Survivors at Hiroshima. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014.

Malloy, Sean L. “‘A Very Pleasant Way to Die’: Radiation Effects and the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb against Japan.” Diplomatic History 36, no. 3 (June 2012): 515-45.

Rotter, Andrew J. Hiroshima: The World's Bomb. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Southard, Susan. Nagasaki: Life After Nuclear War. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2015.

Szasz, Ferenc Morton. Atomic Comics: Cartoonists Confront the Nuclear World. Reno, NV: University of Nevada Press, 2012.

Tsutsui, William. Godzilla on My Mind: Fifty Years of the King of Monsters. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.

 

Technologies for Peace Tourism

$
0
0
Hiroshima Memorial Cenotaph

Since the late 1940s, Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been pushing back against the culture of “dark tourism” that began almost as soon as the atomic bombs exploded. American military tourism promoted the cities as nuclear wastelands that showcased the “mighty power of the bomb.” Sites such as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park and Museum, the Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Museum, and the Nagasaki Peace Park are dedicated to educating the public about the impact of the bombs and nuclear proliferation. However, Hiroshima officials worry that many tourists visit to view the damaged artifacts without grasping the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. One “dark tourism” website offers tips for taking the best photos with the ruins of the former Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, now the Atomic Bomb Dome--calling it the “Eiffel Tower” of dark tourism. Like many other historic sites of tragedy, Hiroshima and Nagasaki face questions of bridging compassionate understanding with a devastating history.

As the global political climate changes, those devoted to pacifism worry that Japan’s stance on nuclear disarmament has begun to fade. Some hibakusha--survivors of the atomic bombs, such as Keiko Ogura--devote their lives to communicating the human consequences of nuclear weapons. As the hibakusha age, they fear that these cities’ tragic history will be forgotten. A number of initiatives by Japanese schoolchildren, universities, and filmmakers use digital technology to preserve memories, educate about the effects of atomic weapons, and highlight perspectives of peace rather than destruction.

Apps

Kioku no Kaito (Rebooting Memories) App by Hidenori Watanave Map of HiroshimaIn 2017, the City of Hiroshima funded the development of a tourist smartphone app that engages visitors with information about the city before the United States dropped the atomic bomb on August 6, 1945. The program offers four walking and bus tours, available in English or Japanese, that lead users to various memorials, cultural centers, museums, and buildings where they can view scenes of the city before and after the bombing.

The app provides important context about Hiroshima’s past. However, some users may identify gaps in the story. Chia-Le Chen at Taipei National University of the Arts elaborates, “None of the four walking routes include any of the military history of Hiroshima, which contained an army base. Japan has been often criticized for not acknowledging or educating their children about the violence and horrors inflicted by the Imperial Army of Japan during the war.” Chen echoes what scholars have termed “victim consciousness,” where Japan’s post-war identity concentrated on the suffering from the atomic bombs rather than addressing the country’s role as aggressors in World War II.

In a similar vein, another interactive mapping program called “Kioku no Kaito,” or “Rebooting Memories,” launched in 2016 (see the second photo middle right). Spawned out of a conference for Japanese and American high school students, the application intends to create a digital community linking younger generations with survivors through interactive mapping. Hidenori Watanave, a professor at the University of Tokyo Graduate School of Interdisciplinary Information Studies, collaborated with senior high school students in Hiroshima to build on resources already collected by the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Digital Archives (see the third photo bottom right).  Students helped add to the archives by interviewing hibakusha and collecting old photographs to digitally reconstruct the cities before the bombings. Pinpoints on the map plotted photographs and survivor testimonies related to each area. The app aims to engage people around the world with the realities of nuclear warfare and provide an online space to share global messages for peace and nuclear abolition.

Virtual Reality

A combination of 3-D modelling, archival photographs, and GPS allows primary school students in Nagasaki the opportunity to use virtual reality technology to explore the city in the aftermath of the atomic attack on August 9, 1945. The journey includes identifiable sites within a 1640-foot radius around the hypocenter of the bomb, such as the Urakami Cathedral and Shiroyama Elementary School. Users track their movements by walking around modern Nagasaki using a tablet, and then the same path is recreated using 3-D glasses. "By walking the area oneself and comparing then and now, the two are connected and one can better understand the damage," Takashi Fujiki, Nagasaki University professor of educational engineering, explained to the Mainichi newspaper.Map of Nagasaki from Nagasaki Digital Archive

The project was developed by a team at Nagasaki University as a way to compare modern-day Nagasaki to the city devastated by the bomb. In 2016, the university team tested the VR technology with ten fifth-graders from Kayaki Elementary School in Nagasaki.

In August 2018, Hiroshima launched its own virtual reality program, created by a computational skill research club at Fukuyama Technical High School. Instead of a GPS tour, the students constructed a five-minute virtual reality experience that portrays the sights and sounds of Hiroshima before, during, and after the bomb. Constructed through research with postcards, photographs, and interviews with survivors, the scene walks users along the Motoyasu River prior to the bombing. Users view the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall before the atomic blast causes the surrounding buildings to disintegrate.

“VR experiences are intimate worlds that we can visit in a way that makes them, by definition, a modern kind of memorial,” explains Saschka Unseld, a filmmaker who recently unveiled a virtual reality program at the 2018 Tribeca Film Festival in New York. Titled “The Day the World Changed,” Unseld and fellow filmmaker Gabo Arora wanted to foster an intimate relationship between viewers and the victims of nuclear weapons, and explore how virtual reality can promote conversations around difficult historical issues.

Unseld’s and Arora’s “Interactive Virtual Reality Memorial” is conveyed in three installments and presented similar to an immersive documentary. The first chapter addresses what led the United States to develop and drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. The second places users in the ruins of the Atomic Bomb Dome to view the aftermath of the bombing, while the third situates viewers in the global race for more atomic weapons. “Our intention with this work is to give voice to those victims of nuclear war, asking the world to face this shared history, and to recognize the true horror of these weapons,” explained Arora. Unseld continues, “By placing the general public inside the ruins of a tragic event like Hiroshima, we hope to activate a groundswell of support for the abolition of nuclear weapons.”

 

Looking to the Future

Many of these digital programs were conceptualized with the knowledge that “history decays over time,” and memories must be actively revived in order to nurture a legacy of pacifism. The hibakusha are aging and will soon be gone—but many of the same social and political anxieties about nuclear weapons remain. As younger generations shift to a more digital focus on education, historical institutions, scholars, and educators have responded by offering interactive narratives online and involving students in manufacturing their own tools for learning. Much of the apps developed around Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still ongoing or too new to be definitively evaluated. However, it is clear that advances in technology have continued to spur innovative ways to connect with tragic histories.

Viewing all 25 articles
Browse latest View live