Following the end of World War II, one of the most widely discussed and debated-over topics has been the rehabilitation of Japan’s cities after enduring an atomic bomb. Although there are many factors and opinions that have gone into this political discussion, one thing has been made clear above all else by a large majority of key writers about the topic; the United States of America can not be viewed as in the wrong.
In an article, Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens, authored by David Serlin, Serlin writes about the Hiroshima Maidens. They were young women who had been physically mutilated by the atomic bomb dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. Serlin paints a picture of these women as rejects of Japanese society as a result of their disfigurement from the war. He says things like, “the young women had been kept out of sight by their embarrassed families, who understood their disfigurements as subjective reflections of their families’ status rather than as the objective effects of atomic warfare” (59). These girls were given “humanitarian aid” in the form of plastic surgery and then used as political tools to show that America was doing its part in taking care of those injured in its atomic bombings. America is painted as a hero for social cause. Serlin also writes about the Japanese American sculptor Isamo Noguchi, whom was discriminated against for attempting to help design a memorial for the victims of the atomic bombings. Serlin goes on to quote Noguchi, pointing out that “‘the Japanese said they did not need a foreigner’s help’” (58). This makes the American citizen look like the victim in the horrific aftermath of the bombings.
Then, in an article published by Yale Law school, titled, “The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Chapter 24 – Effects of the Atomic Bombings on the Inhabitants of the Bombed Cities, the author does justice to pointing out the psychological effects that the atomic bombs had on the survivors of the attacks. Yet, its final and concluding statement, “The atomic bomb did not alone win the war against Japan, but it most certainly ended it, saving the thousands of Allied lives that would have been lost in any combat invasion of Japan” (Yale Law School). This phrase serves as a justification for the bombings, further promoting that America (and Allied forces) need not accept all blame for the atomic bombings.
The two atomic bombings of Japanese cities in World War II produced devastating results. It left people crippled and psychologically damaged. Yet, as authors write about the effects of the bombs, they never seem to be able to place all of the responsibility for the bombings onto the nation that conducted the bombings.
I liked how your second article focused on the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and their psychological effects it pairs nicely with the Serlin article. I liked that your blogpost pointed out that writers never seem to classify America as in the wrong for dropping the Atomic Bomb. Do you think this is a point of view that is only found in American academic writing or do you think that authors discussing this topic from different nations agree with this theory?
The quote you used from Yale is probably one of the most popular quotes in the debate of whether or not it was right or just to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You have a strong argument in your blog. I like how you open with the statement that the US was not fully responsible for dropping the atomic bomb. I think there is much more to investigate before determining who is to “blame” for the aftermath of the bombings, or if blame is even due at all.
The title of your article makes me think of the phrase “a band-aid for a bullet wound,” and I certainly believe that is what the Hiroshima maidens were in this instance. With the thousands of Japanese citizens suffering physical trauma due to American aerial campaigns, coupled with the atomic bombs, there were more than 25 women in need of Western medical experience. While it would be unrealistic to expect any nation to take responsibility for all the casualties of war, I do think the maidens news coverage was simply an attempt to cover up the true extent of the damage done, and an attempt to make the United States appear to be fully committed to helping the victims recover as best as possible. These women did indeed become political tools.
That is an interesting point, but also one that centers around the fact that the authors who wrote the articles you read were all raised in America and were writing for an American audience. Just as Great Britain doesn’t see the American Revolution as an inherently good thing, America doesn’t see the bombings as inherently evil.