One of the “Hiroshima Maidens” shows her scars.
The Second World War offered up destruction on a scale larger than had been seen before. The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been held up over the years as prime examples of violence to the furthest extreme. The recovery of those effected by the United States’ use of atomic weaponry was also uncharted territory. While the U.S. only ever used the atom bomb in Japan, Germany received intense firebombing that irreparably effected not only the people living in the targeted cities but also the entire landscape surrounding them.
In 1955, the Hiroshima Maidens, as the American Press dubbed them, made their way to the U.S. to receive plastic surgery for wounds they sustained in the dropping of the atomic bomb. These women were to receive reconstructive surgery, in an attempt to bring their appearance back to what it once was. David Serlin writes about these women and their experiences in his article, Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens. Serlin brings to light in his article the politicization of these women and the treatment that they received. The media hyped these women up to the American public and then treated them simply as means to receive high ratings. The American public found it fascinating how these women were seeking plastic surgery for their wounds. Many people thought of it as vanity, or even a desire for them to become more “American”. Others used the women’s tragedy to try to push their own political agendas. Unfortunately, the poor scrutiny of the media sensationalized the “Hiroshima Maidens” and overshadowed the actual stories that these women had.
Serlin writes in a way that I find many historians do. His main purpose is to bring to light a different perspective of a commonly known story. For many people, the Hiroshima Maidens were merely a tool to get high ratings or to further a political cause. What Serlin tries to do, is highlight the fact that there was more to these women than the media story that followed them. He tells the reader upsetting stories to try to further his point. One such story that he tells, was when the Hiroshima women were brought out on a reality tv show called This is Your Life. The women were confronted by the co-pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb over Hiroshima. There are many other stories such as this that Serlin likes to dwell on, giving the reader a sense of compassion for how these women were treated.
Another article that deals with the aftermath and recovery after World War II bombing is Judith Stilgenbauer and Joe Mcbride’s, Reconstruction of Urban Forests in Hamburg and Dresden after World War II. This article deals with the efforts of two separate German cities to repair damages done after the war. During the Post-war, Hamburg was occupied by the Western forces of U.S., France and Britain while Dresden was put behind the Soviet block. The article shows the differing plans of rehabilitation that these two cities received. Hamburg was concerned with restoring the city to what it once was, almost as if to erase the fact that it had been destroyed in the first place. The efforts for reconstruction in Dresden however were completely different and showed the Soviet Union’s desire to leave their mark on the city.
Stilgenbauer and Mcbride write in a much more detached way than Serlin does. These two present their cases and then seemingly step back to allow the reader to make judgements on their own. They do a good job of presenting and analyzing the facts in a complete manner. One of the ways in which they show their organization is how they examine the different city planning policies in terms of before, during and after the war. This provides the reader with a complete and thorough picture of how these cities were run.
Bot of these articles show reconstruction after the war in two different ways. One focuses on repairing the body while the other focuses on repairing a city. They each also show different ways of examining history. Serlin writes in a way that is critical of the past. He hopes to point the reader to past mistakes and challenge us to be better. Stilgenbauer and Mcbride however approach it with much more detachment and simply present a study of the time period. Each one of these articles, despite their differences of style, succeed in their own way in examining postwar reconstruction and what it meant for those living through it.
Jesse, I really liked how the second article you chose was not about the Hiroshima Maidens, but instead about reconstruction and rehabilitation more generally. I think often when people think about devastation during WW2 they instantly think about the dropping of the atomic bombs. However, the bombardment of Germany had similar consequences in terms of cities lost or destroyed. I like how you were able to draw similarities between repairing the Maiden’s scars and Dresden’s ruins. One question I have is was one more important than the other?
I really enjoyed reading about your comparisons between the articles. I also think it is great that you drew your inspiration from Serlin’s focus on the reconstruction of Hiroshima to find your second article. It is very interesting see how the Allies and Soviets went about reconstructing their respective controlled territory. It makes me wonder if the manner in which the cities were “rehabilitated” can be carried over to how veterans of the war were rehabilitated by the Allies and Soviets, and if a larger pattern between how each decided to go about reconstruction in general can be established.
I like how you brought up the idea that Americans thought the Maidens were getting surgery to look more “american” or western and how they were used as political pawns. I also liked that you talked about how Germany was trying to recover from the war since we have mostly been focusing on Japan’s recovery after the bombings. I found it interesting that America and the Soviet Union both wanted to influence the cities that they were helping reconstruct. I wonder if this was influenced by the onset of the Cold War?