draft being rewritten
I can not imagine why anyone would care what. I think about anything related to the issues discussed in this post, unless they had some interest in the "popular understanding of history by a citizen" or something of that nature. I recommend you skip this post unless you happen to be specifically interested in the issues discussed here.
I read a book about the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum Enola Gay exhibit, a disaster of monumental scale, a nuclear explosion if you will, in which the veterans, the Air Force, the US Congress compelled the Smithsonian to back off from an exhibit which they were far along in creating. The book is called "History Wars" and it presents the historians point of view on the subject and the larger issues of the interpretation of history.
I expected the book to be a balanced discussion of the issues that also showed that the situation had spun out of control and that the Smithsonian certainly was not planning to do an exhibit that would have presented the veterans or this country guilty of all sorts of nasty things. But in fact the book did not do that, the book instead presented the very clear point of view that there was one way to interpret history, it was the historians way, and any other opinion was wrong.
So I wanted to write about this book and the exhibit but to do so I felt I had to explain something about the situation that the book describes and to do that is a Vietnam-like morass of complicated issues. Issues that do not lend themselves to simple sound bites.
And so this post is the attempt to get a basic synopsis of the issues behind the incident.
I am sorry. Feel free to ignore it and don't think worse of me because of it. I don't know whether we should have dropped the bomb on Hiroshima or what would have happened if we had invaded the home islands of Japan, or whether the Japanese would have surrendered immediately anyway, or any of dozens of other fascinating and unanswerable questions. I know that the dropping of the bomb was not a casual decision and I know what the veterans thought about what the sudden ending of the war meant to them and their lives because they were very clear about that topic both at the time and now.
So forgive me, here is the background, and then there will be post on what my impression of the historian side of the story.
The book discussed here can be found on Amazon.com at
"History Wars"
To
recap, the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum planned an exhibit
about the mission on August 6, 1945 to drop the atomic bomb on
Hiroshima. The centerpiece of that exhibit would be the Enola Gay,
the highly modified B-29 that actually dropped the bomb (there were 7
B-29s on that mission that day, but the Enola Gay carried the bomb
itself). It might sound straightforward but it was anything but straightforward and
here are some of the reasons.
1.
The Smithsonian had the Enola Gay for decades but had refused to
exhibit it. It was literally left out to rot in the rain and snow
getting progressively more decrepit and rusted. Their actions were
perceived for what they were, contempt for the history of this
country, contempt for the veterans. The Air Force begged for the
Smithsonian to give this historic plane to them so that they could
restore it and show it in one of their museums, but the Smithsonian
refused. The plane stayed in the rain and snow and rotted. This did not exactly endear the Smithsonian to the Air Force or the veterans.
2.
The dropping of the atomic bomb was an unusually specific event that
could be said to end one era and begin another. Usually these
transitions are more amorphous and take place over years or decades. But
because the atomic bomb either was apparently the
immediate cause of the end of WW 2 and the beginning of the cold war
and the nuclear age, it presented many difficult historical problems
that any exhibit either had to address or ignore, but a decision had
to be made about them and no decision could be a decision. Realize also that accomplishment of dropping that bomb was the culmination of at least three different important efforts that we, the United States, took during that war. Most people know of the Manhattan Project, but the creation of the B-29 and the story of the unit that dropped the bomb was no where near as well known.
3.
There are very strong differences of opinion about the value of
dropping the atomic bomb and its role in ending the war in the
Pacific. But there was no doubt in the minds of anyone in the US
armed services in the Pacific that it had ended the war and that it
had saved their lives by doing so. But many Americans who certainly know we dropped the bomb that day are not as aware of why the veterans thought it had saved their lives. (3)
4. The people at the Smithsonian Air & Space Museum determined that their exhibit about the Enola Gay and the dropping of the bomb was going to be a "balanced exhibit", in their words, that talked about many different points of view about the event. From the veteran point of view, this meant that they would be portrayed as heartless killers of children who had dropped a bomb for no good reason. . If America
had not had to drop the bomb and if it was an immoral act then
arguably America could be accused of committing a war crime in doing
so and this was obvious to the veterans who were not amused by this.
5.
It should be remembered that this was no mere article in a magazine
somewhere, this was the premiere United States aviation museum
passing judgment on the morality of dropping the bomb on the occasion
of the 50th anniversary of the event and the end of WW 2.
Before
I go further in describing the controversy around the exhibit I want
to digress for just a moment on the role of the bomb in causing Japan
to surrender and whether Japan knew it was defeated and was planning
to surrender anyway. Both of these issues are fabulously
complex and controversial. Most of all it requires the historian, professional or otherwise, to put themselves into the position of what was known at the time vs what was known later. And to understand things outside the experience of most normal people (like what is involved in invading the home islands of Japan and what it would mean to delay such an invasion to let things evolve).
(2)
6.
But drop the bomb we did, and shortly thereafter began a firestorm of
controversy about whether the bomb needed to be dropped to end the
war. 50 years later, the Smithsonian wrote a draft of the planned
exhibit, and that exhibit was leaked both to the Air Force and to
various veteran groups. Of course it should have been leaked, it
should have been sent for review by those groups. Surely the
Smithsonian did not think they could just surprise people with the
exhibit and their interpretation of the event?
7.
The resultant explosion was everything that could be desired and more
so. The veterans went nuclear, so to speak, and called for the
Smithsonian's blood. The Smithsonian retaliated by ripping the
wings off the Enola Gay and exhibiting it without an exhibition. No
interpretation or story at all. It just hangs wingless in the
Smithsonian (it has since been moved to the new gallery outside Washington and had its parts restored). The head of the Smithsonian and a few specific
historians returned to academia. The veterans got nothing, the
historians got nothing, the Smithsonian had completely dropped the ball.
The Enola Gay without its wings, with one propeller on the wall, and no discussion of what happened
It
was an unmitigated disaster for the Smithsonian as they had failed,
utterly failed, to represent in any reasonable way the event, the
technology, the end of the war, the story of the dropping of the
bomb, anything.
A
total failure.
But it wasn't over yet.
End
of part 1.
_____________________________________________
1.
The other two are on the origins and legality of the American Civil
War and a post on writing the genre of prediction with special
reference to lessons learned from Nostradamus, a very misunderstood
writer of fiction.
2.
There are many, many controversies. A partial list includes: (a)
that we were about one month away from the invasion of Japan and we
knew this was going to be very bloody (b) that Japan knew we were
very close to invading and had every intention of fighting and had
worked with initiative to prepare and had done a very competent job
of that given their situation at the time, (c) that the bombing of
the Japanese cities had caused vast destruction and misery to all
sectors of Japanese society and yet had not apparently destroyed
their determination to fight and there is no doubt that situation
caused many Americans in leadership positions to wonder what exactly
was going to be necessary to cause Japan to surrender, (d) that Japan
leadership knew they had lost the war but hoped to negotiate an end
to the war that allowed them to keep their empire in Korea and
Manchuria, although the extent that this is true is certainly
debatable, (e) that the American people wanted this war over now, (f)
that the USSR having completed the war in Europe was now moving to
assist us in the far east in Manchuria and people were sensitive to
the role that Stalin and the USSR would play in the post-war world,
and some historians consider it immoral for us to consider this issue
in the decision to hurry the end of the war by dropping the bomb, (g)
and last but not least, unlike Germany, the Japanese armies were
undefeated in the field in China and Korea and did not see a terribly
pressing need to surrender all that they had been fighting for.
Yes, the home islands were suffering, yes in fact they were all
suffering, but from their point of view they were far from defeated.
3.
It should be no surprise that the average American does not know
their own history on this matter, but it is odd that the historians
do not. There are those who claim that this is because historians
are ignorant of the fundamental issues that they study and there is
quite a bit to support that argument. At the time the bomb was
dropped, we were in a terrific struggle with the Japanese and people
were dying by the scores every day, both Americans and Japanese. We
never had a defense against the suicide attacks on ships. They never
had a defense against our incendiary bombing of Japan or the
unrestricted submarine war on their merchant shipping.
By
far more Japanese were dying than Americans, but that was about to
change because we were literally within eight weeks of an invasion of the
Japanese home islands that would probably make the invasion of Normandy look peaceful in
comparison. Projected casualties varied wildly depending
on who did the predictions. When Truman took office after Roosevelt, probably his single most important issue to address was how to bring the war to a successful conclusion with a minimum of casualties. What you, the non professional, need to
understand is that for an invasion of this scope 8 weeks is almost no time at all,
its not even a weekend. You should think of it as 15 minutes before
midnight. It means that all the ships, planes, munitions, etc are
built and in place, and all the men are trained and in position (not quite, but almost, I exaggerate here a little). It
means that the hospital ships are built, and the
doctors and nurses trained, and most of the medical supplies are ready to go, or nearly so.
When
the bomb was dropped and the war suddenly and unexpectedly ended,
there were several million Americans in uniform getting ready to
storm the beaches and support that activity. These people to the
last person, as far as I can tell from reading mostly secondary sources and a few primary ones, believed that the dropping of the atomic bomb saved their
lives because it made it unnecessary to invade the Japanese home islands. For those who believe that the war was over, and that Japanese knew they had lost, you are invited to learn about the invasion of Okinawa and what that entailed.
But since we did not actually invade Japan, the number of casualties is of course not known, and many people who have studied the issue (but who were not there) have a different opinion of what would have happened had we not dropped the bomb.