In every war there is always a multitude of perspectives. World War II was no different, particularly in regard to the US use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. While the traditional US opinion is that dropping the bombs was a necessary evil that eventually saved more lives than it took, the Japanese however, viewed it differently. They had to experience it first-hand and saw how it effected those around them.
This push and pull in post war perceptions is perfectly exemplified through the Hiroshima Maidens. These women had been brutally scarred and disfigured by the bombings of Hiroshima, and as a result came to America in order to receive plastic surgery. However, the interaction between these women and America is one of a controversial nature.
In the D Serlin article, “Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens” the author focuses on the somewhat ironic nature of the US’ reconstruction of Japan after the war. The US attempted to change Japanese women into more “western”. As the article states, “whatever initial otherness the Maidens brought with them on the airplane was neutralized by reconstructing them in the image of American women- if not physically then certainly socially” (Serlin). In a way, this could be considered a continuation of the war. Post-war America could be seen as continuing to destroy Japanese culture.
One of the ‘Hiroshima Maidens’ before and after plastic surgery
However, the Cousins article seemed to take a different perspective. It attempted to portray the Japanese as the persecutors of these women. This is demonstrated in the quote, “the tendency of human beings to shun and even subconsciously to resent human beings with deformities is strong in Japanese culture” (Cousins). I would argue that repulsion to anything against the norm is not uniquely Japanese, it is simply a human tendency. By attempting to paint this as a Japanese trait the author seeks to justify the American bombings and paint them as the heroes of the people they originally attacked.
Cousins continues to portray America as a safe haven for these women when he states, “I watched the girls closely as they spoke of their hopes about coming to America” (Cousins). The irony involved in this claim is intense. Japanese women must come to America in order to escape persecution in their own country, persecution as a result of the bombings America executed.
The paradoxical nature of Americans attempting to aid those effected by the war, while they were the perpetrators of these attacks, truly illustrates the complicated nature of war itself. War is never clear cut and in order to gain a complete understanding of any given event, we must look at it from all angles.
Sources
Cousins, Norman. “Hiroshima Maidens.” Hibakusha Stories, Mcgraw Hill Book Company, 1967, hibakushastories.org/hiroshima-maidens/.
Whether or not nuking Japan was wrong or not is hardly an important question. The war was won and no further aggression was needed. What kind of surprise do you believe the Japanese felt and the relative civility given by the Americans after the war? Do you believe that they saw good will, or an attempt to undermine what was left of Japanese culture?
The second article that you mention is very intriguing because i hadn’t thought about that possibility in Japanese culture. I knew that it was a present part of their culture before the war but i would have thought that the Japanese people would accept them for what happened to them. Do you think that there is more bias in the second article to make it seem like the US was saving these people from persecution? or do you believe the first article that this was for the US to westernize these women?
In your article, you talk about how there are multiple perspectives on the bombings and, from what I understand, you seem to see the two articles as each pushing separate agendas as far as laying blame on the US for the bombings. Is it possible that there is only one perspective that matters in this situation and one that we haven’t discussed? What did the maidens think about being sent to America to have this surgery? Did they see the irony of this or did they simply not care? Now, I realize that the point of this exercise is to examine secondary sources to look at their historiography, but isn’t it a bit odd that most of the articles don’t spend a lot of time asking these maidens anything?