This Friday marks the 65th anniversary of the first use of the atomic bomb against a large city. Since that day, creative artists of every variety have made incisive, satiric or powerful statements about nuclear threats. They have offered cautionary works that depict the horror of the bomb or its meaning in our society. What these artistic statements share, however, with rare exceptions, is an avoidance of the specific subject of Hiroshima.
Since August 1945, hundreds of "nuclear" movies have appeared. At least one American "nuclear" film was a work of genius (Dr. Strangelove), and several others explored the issue thoughtfully (Fail-Safe, The War Game, Testament and Desert Bloom come to mind). But more often the fear of nuclear war in Hollywood spawned survivalist fantasies, irradiated-monster films and post-apocalypse thrillers.
What is striking is that few of these films say anything directly about Hiroshima. Almost all of them are works of pure fiction, imagining nuclear attacks in the near or distant future while ignoring the two instances when atomic weapons have already been used: Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
Only three Hollywood movies have emerged about the making or use of the first atomic bombs: The Beginning or the End, Above and Beyond, and Fat Man and Little Boy (the only such film since the 1950s).
Ambivalence or guilt is certain to be evoked by any cinematic treatment of Hiroshima. Perhaps that is why the films all grapple with the notion of American decency. The three Hollywood films have much in common: Each was highly touted and directed by a talented film maker but was an artistic failure. Each was subject to political pressure or scrutiny. Here's a close-up look at the "coverup" -- led by the Truman White House -- of the first "Hiroshima movie," some of it based on material we were first to discover at the Truman Library in Missouri.
The Beginning or the End
This controversial MGM film emerged, after many revisions -- some demanded by the White House -- as a Hollywood version of the official Hiroshima narrative: the bomb was necessary to end the war and save American lives.
About a month after the Hiroshima attack, Sam Marx, a producer at MGM, received a call from agent Tony Owen, who said his wife, actress Donna Reed, had received some fascinating letters from her high school chemistry teacher, Dr. Edward Tomkins--who was not at Oak Ridge. Tomkins expressed surpise that Hollywood did not already have an atomic bomb feature in the works, and wondered if the film industry wanted to warn the people of the world about the coming dangers of a nuclear arms race.
Soon, MGM boss Louis B. Mayer gave the film a go, calling it "the most important story" he would ever film. Marx and others from MGM met with the atomic scientists at Oak Ridge and elsewhere.
Early scripts raised doubts about the Hiroshima decision and portrayed the effects of the atomic bombing in a way that would have shocked many viewers, with Hiroshima pictured as ghostlike ruins and a baby with a burned face. The overall political message was alarmist and aligned with pro-disarmament scientists: It would have been better to lose half a million American lives "than release atomic energy in the world."
Then something happened, and the sensibility of The Beginning or the End shifted radically. The decision to use the bomb, in revised scripts, was viewed as justifiable, even admirable. Now, after the bombings, no victims appeared -- just a burning landscape observed from the air. Amazingly, Gen. Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project, had secured the right of script approval -- along with a hefty $10,000 fee -- and played a vital part in reshaping the film.
MGM hired Norman Taurog to direct the film and Hume Cronyn to star as Robert Oppenheimer. Everyone from famed columnist Bob Considine to author Ayn Rand were involved in early scripts. Nearly all of the scientists impersonated in the film signed releases, even Albert Einstein, but unlike Groves and President Truman, were not given script approval. Oppenheimer visited the set after being assured that his character, the film's narrator, would display "humility" and "a love of mankind."
The Hollywoodization of the bomb had begun.
Even in minor details, the film now justified the bombing. General Groves made light of nuclear fallout. The B-29's flying over Hiroshima were pelted with heavy flak, a fabrication that makes the attack more courageous. The name of one of those planes was changed from Bock's Car to Necessary Evil. Nagasaki was not mentioned at all. One scene depicting a fictional German scientists visiting a (fabricated) Japanese nuclear facility in--Hiroshima.
Yet it was in the script's central melodrama that the true message of the film was conveyed. Matt Cochran, a young scientist arming the bomb, prevents a chain reaction from blowing up 40,000 people on a Pacific island -- and thereby exposes himself to a fatal dose of radiation. But just before he dies, Matt concludes that "God has not shown us a new way to destroy ourselves. Atomic energy is the hand he has extended to lift us from the ruins of war and lighten the burdens of peace."
After screening the finished, watered-down, film, famed columnist Walter Lippmann said he still found one scene "shocking." President Truman felt uncomfortable with it as well. It pictured Truman making the decision to use the bomb, and the president and his aides objected to his deciding, after only a brief reflection, that the United States would use the weapon against Japan because "I think more of our American boys than I do of all our enemies." This was actually true, of course.
After protests from the White House, the MGM screenwriter James K. McGuinness deleted the offending scene and wrote a new one in which Truman explained that in his many discussions on the matter the "consensus of opinion is that the bomb will shorten the war by approximately a year." In the revised scene, Truman revealed that the United States would drop leaflets warning the populace of "what is coming" as a means to "save lives." He said there was a "consensus" that dropping the bomb by a year (there was no such thing) and he predicted that a "year less of war will mean life for . . . from 300,000 to half a million of America's finest youth" (a highly inflated figure).
And he advised that the targets had been picked for their prime military value, rather than the truth: They were picked because they had not been bombed previously and so would demonstrate the pure power of this new weapon. In any case, the aiming points for release of the bombs would be the center of the cities, not over any military bases. The new scene had Truman claiming he had spent "sleepless nights" making the decision. But in real life he proudly insisted he had never lost any sleep over it.
Still, the White House demanded further changes; among them, deleting a reference to morally concerned scientists who favored demonstrating the bomb for Japanese leaders in a remote area before dropping it on a city.
Truman even wrote a letter objecting to the actor who had portrayed him in the original scene, and the actor, Roman Bohnen was replaced. Bohnen would write a sarcastic letter to Truman, informing him that people would be debating the decision to drop the bomb for 100 years "and posterity is quite apt to be a little rough." Truman, who normally ignored critical letters, took the trouble to reply and defend the decision, revealing, "I have no qualms about it whatever."
The Beginning or the End, which billed itself as "basically a true story," opened across the country in March 1947 to mixed reviews (see video below). Time laughed at the film's "cheery imbecility," but Variety praised its "aura of authenticity and special historical significance."
Harrison Brown, who had worked on the bomb, exposed some of the film's factual errors in The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists: he called the showering of warning leaflets over Hiroshima the "most horrible falsification of history." But in the far more influential New York Times, Bosley Crowther called the picture a fair and "creditable" reenactment and observed that MGM had "taken no obvious sides in the current atomic contentions."
The MGM movie was seen by hundreds of thousands of Americans. Because of its quasi-documentary form, its depiction of history was probably accepted by most viewers. (See MGM preview below.) But famed physicist Leo Szilard, after attending a screening, summed it up this way: "If our sin as scientists was to make and use the bomb, then our punishment was to watch The Beginning or the End."
Greg Mitchell writes the popular Media Fix blog for The Nation. He first wrote about Hiroshima films in his book with Robert Jay Lifton, "Hiroshima in America." This piece is updated from material in that book.
Follow Greg Mitchell on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GregMitch
Jeff Schweitzer: The End Is Not Nigh: Take a Deep Breath and Move On
Rev. Tyler Wigg-Stevenson: Hiroshima and the Transfiguration: A Meditation
Perspective is a delicate dance.
Admiral Leahy: "the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages."
General MacArthur: "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb."
General LeMay: "The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war."
Admiral Nimitz: "...I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life......We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything."
Among others.
Similarly, MacArthur never met an event that he liked unless he was its star.
The other quotes are quite factual. We were going to defeat Japan one way or the other. However, the cost of an invasion was going to be quite high.
There is a gigantic difference between introducing the atom bomb as a weapon of war and continuing the use of the conventional carpet bombing that we had done in Germany and that Germany had done in Britain. That introduction has hampered our ability to discourage nuclear bomb development.
We can guess what was in the minds of LeMay and MacArthur but it is foolish to claim that they were probably insincere. After all, they were simply echoing the same sentiments as the many other military who were there on the ground rather than in Washington.
Japan's spirit had largely been broken, according to the military leaders there on the ground. We know that a good way to restore a people's desire to resist is to invade them, especially if their leaders have convinced them that the invaders would kill and rape them.
*****
Yes and No. LeMay was certainly Commander of the B-29 bomber group that executed those firebombing sprees, but the actual number-crunching and cost/benefit analysis of which Japanese cities and civilian populations to incinerate in the most effective and efficient manner . . . not unlike Eichmann coordinating train schedules so the Final Solution could be carried out with the least amount of difficulty . . . was done by Capt. Robert S. MacNamara of the Army Air Forces' Office of Statistical Control who, as we all know, brought a similarly calibrated moral sense to his work as Secretary of Defense during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
It's what Hannah Arendt was talking about when she coined the phrase 'The Banality of Evil.'
It's in their DNA..in ours too.
Stronium90 !
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/arens/chap4.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
(I'm sure the "we had to nuke civilians" crowd will be out in droves in the comments section here.)
There were scenes of devastation but I think the movie was made in the 80's.
when on Palm Sunday of 1942, Bomber Harris attacked the city with the incendiary carpet bombing
methods what would destroy Hamburg the following year, be used widely from that point on
by the allies day and night. Cologne, Wuerzberg 90 percent destroyed, for example. Then
Dresden in 1945, followed by Curtis LeMay's attack on Tokyo that did what it infamously did.
I recommend that everyone reading this article also see the movie trailer from start to end. One
has to understand that the stilted acting was the norm in those days, and that meant that a public
seeing such naked propaganda had to be prepared to swallow it. We were. Between the end
of WWII and the first Russian nuclear test in 1949, the United States was insanely in love with
itself, and as a 7 year old I shared in the insanity. But as a Cub Scout standing in the Den Mother's
kitchen on day in 1949, where a radio left on announced the detection of the Soviet test, I remember acutely telling myself that I would never forget where I was standing, as I listened. And I knew that I would never again experience a world that from Hiroshima and Nagasaki to that point seemed so safe to Americans. It wasn't. Now we knew it. But that insane narcissism, betrayed by reality, is still harbored by our far right.
The claims of requiring another year or two to complete an invasion at the cost of several million lives is negated by the haste with which the second bomb was dropped: if an invasion would take two years, then the second example could certainly be spaced out a week or two from the first.
The second bomb was not used to convince the Japanese to surrender to avoid an American invasion - it was to convince the Japanese to surrender before the Russians could make claims on anything.
"A radioactive cloud consumed rubbed out Hiroshima...A live nuclear test sentenced you. A nuclear laboratory…children women trees animals in and under a nuclear mushroom…burning… burned…flattened to ground radioactive ash-Hiroshima...Nuclear weapons gamblers win against you…Hollywood doesn't know you - you are not a Jewish Holocaust."-Mordechai Vanunu, 1995, from Ashkelon Prison
As a child, I could not comprehend how my country could cold bloodedly target and murder Japanese citizens in order to 'save' American lives, which was the lame response I always received from every adult I questioned as to why after what we did to Hiroshima did we do it again to Nagasaki?
Many Americans live under the delusion that the USA is a Christian nation. If that were true, we would lead the way in nuclear disarmament and abolish war.
"The one thing we can say for sure about Jesus is that he practiced active, public, creative non-violence..."
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1354&Itemid=222
In fact, "The recently negotiated New START treaty does not significantly cut the US and Russian arsenals. In fact the treaty language secures an allowance for US 'missile defense' programs as well as the 'prompt global strike' weapons system while consolidating the US stockpile...the debate in Washington revolves around two camps fighting over how large an increase in nuclear weapons spending there will be.
"At this point in time all agree on expending billions more. All agree on building a new plutonium pit factory, a new uranium processing facility, a new components factory, and five other major capital projects in the nuclear weapons complex to extend the US nuclear enterprise half a decade or more into the future. Most agree on procuring a new class of nuclear equipped submarines. Most agree on new ballistic missiles. Everyone seems to be fine with upgrading warheads and bombs..."
Albert Camus once wrote that "the evil that is in the world almost always comes of ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence if they lack understanding."
http://wearewideawake.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1799&Itemid=235
I assume that you are referring to the fire bombing of Tokyo. Yes, horrific.
However, I am sure I do not share your perspective on it.
Perhaps the most interesting thing about the experience of the War in the Japanese exhibits is the total lack of any documentation of the absolute havoc they wreaked on all of Asia.
The United States has many faults, but we have a much more open examination of history than most countries.
I love Japan and the Japanese people, but I can assure you that had they won, the reconstruction of the conquered countries would have looked nothing like what we did with Japan.
Just ask a Korean.
BTW, I wasn't referring to the fire bombing of Tokyo, as bad as it was (but no worse than the London blitz by the Germans). No, I was thinking about the Japanese films of Hiroshima and Nagasaki taken shortly after the bombs fell. Did you see those? Sickening. I still can't get some of those images out of my brain.
The Japanese still haven't come to bear on what they did in WWII, unlike the Germans who do know and understand their history.
Dropping the bomb ended the war.