Hiroshima A-Bomb Survivors Face Brighter Future,’ proclaimed the text accompanying this photograph of Mitsuko Kuranoto and Emiko Takemoto as they arrive at Mitchel Air Force Base on Long Island, NY. Source: AP Wire 9 May 1955.
Imagine yourself in high school watching a bully beat up some kid you know at school. You know the kid, but he’s not that much of a friend to you. Days and days go by and the same things happen and you continue to see the same things happen and you continue to ignore the wrong doing. But one day, the bully begins to engage you. You don’t understand why, but he starts to focus his actions on you. Unlike the other kid, you fight back, and actually put up a good fight. The bully keeps persisting, but you stand your ground until one day you move on the offensive. You strike the bully down to end the whole conflict. So what do you do now?
That’s the big question. I’m not drawing a direct parallel from this example to the Post WWII relation with Japan and America. They’re not exactly the same. But the question is the same. How do you treat the person who initiated the conflict after you overwhelmed them and stopped them. Do you leave them be or help them? America chose the right way and decided to help Japan, but it was a more tense situation than a casual high school fight.
America had done something that had never been seen before. America executed the highest casualty producing weapon in the history of the world: the atomic bomb. Not only did they do it once, but twice. The decision is still debated today but the less asked question is what happened to those victims? Well the US helped them. But the US’s actions have been looked over in several different aspects.
I read over two different articles going over the reconstruction of Hiroshima in two very different ways. The first is an article by David Serlin focusing on the “Hiroshima Maidens.” The second is a Time magazine article on the physical reconstruction of Hiroshima by Bill Powell. Serlin’s article, titled Reconstructing the Hiroshima Maidens, focuses on the physical reconstruction of a select group of women from Hiroshima. The rehabilitation was geared towards the scares and bodily disfigurements that they received from the Atom Bomb.
The Time magazine, published in 2005, mainly focuses on the positive side of Hiroshima’s reconstruction. The city wanted to focus its new image on the theme of peace. Since everyone there had witnessed first hand the capabilities of the new “nuclear era,” they wanted to voice their very united opinion on the matter. The new city brought a very soft opinion on the matter. Today we all agree that nuclear arms is not the answer. But the new Cold War brought a new thinking. Everyone was scared of each other. Everyone had them, so it was a matter of who had the most. Surplus was the new security in the matter. But Japan, and Hiroshima especially, voice the Anti-Nuclear opinion firmly. From the article, it seems like America had no opinion in the matter, but that was not the case for the second.
Serlin’s article brought a much more negative approach to the topic. The article on the “Hiroshima Maidens” didn’t focus on the actual rehabilitation of the women’s scares, but mainly their time in America and what was all going on around them. there was something much bigger going on around them as they received their treatment.
Sources:
http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1087168,00.html
http://intersections.anu.edu.au/issue24/jacobs.htm
Kendall, your blogpost was very interesting because you drew on two articles that focused on Hiroshima but in drastically different ways. I liked how you incorporated one about the victims of the bombing while the other article focused more on the rebuilding of the city itself. You pointed out that Serlin did not focus his research on the actual rehabilitation of the women but rather their time in America. Why do you think Serlin did that? Was it in order to make his article more appealing and relatable to a mass audience or was the actual stories of the Maidens and their time in the US more important to understanding the rebuilding of Japan after the Atomic Bomb?
I like how you opened your blogpost with a story before delving into the topic. I thought it interesting that you pointed out that Sterlin chose to focus more on the Maiden’s time in america rather than their actual recovery. Sterlin’s article almost felt as if it was mean to be a cultural synopsis depicting the differences between Western and Eastern cultures. You also mention how gracious it was for the US to offer surgery to the twenty-five maidens. I would like to bring up the rather negative point that helping twenty-five of those injured was such a small drop in the pool that it didn’t stand for anything more than political propaganda. I don’t know the answer here, just a thought, and something to talk about further.
I really think your introduction example really helps to generalize what has occurring in the postwar period. I would certainly agree that Serlin’s article really emphasized the women’s time in America and how it was sensational at the time. I would agree with Kathryn though in that helping these 25 women to such an extent does not really do much for the thousands of other Japanese victims of the atomic bombs and fire bombing campaigns beforehand. I believe the move was not entirely political in nature, but the American government and media certainly used the story of the maidens to their advantages.
First off, great analogy, second I like how your question stated that the United States didn’t start the war. I think that is very important because when people see the large loss of life, or as you mentioned the highest casualty producing weapon they forget that America did not start the war, we were not wanting to provoke the Japanese. FDR wanted to stay out of the war all together by sending supplies and materials to help stop the enemies rather then man power. Because it is not fresh in our minds and we did not live during. The single most relevant event in our life was 9/11 and even then we were too young to grasp the true magnitude. After 9/11 America launched a campaign in the middle East, whether it was justified or not we did and America to the best of their ability supported troops, maybe not the war but the troops. With that said I see how after 4 years of battle and the high amount of casualties they wanted to see the end of the war. To me that was a key point I wish I had added in my blog. It was estimated that another 150,000 casualties would occur if they were to invade the mainland of Japan. Also I liked how you had two articles of the same event and place but with radical different views.