Customer Reviews

Hiroshima's Shadow (Writings on the denial of history & the Smithsonian controversy)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Here is an extract from my review of 'Hiroshima's Shadows', that appeared in 'New Politics', no. 25 (Summer 1998):

'Hiroshima's Shadow: Writings on the Denial of History and the Smithsonian Controversy' is an enormous, and aesthetically handsome work, bringing together nearly 50 essays between between 1945 and 1997 by scholars, military, political and religious leaders, independent intellectuals, and survivors of the atomic bombings. The book is unusual in that, though it has a strong editorial point of view, the editors unflinchingly present voices from all sides of the argument.

The contribors include Albert Camus, Dwight Macdonald, Lewis Mumford, Mary McCarthy, A.J. Muste, among others. Defenders of the bomb include Charles Krauthammer who says that we should "let the Japanese commemorate the catastrophe they brought on themselves" (rather than mourn the use of the bomb), and Paul Fussel, an English professor and ex-front line combatant, who raises the slogan, "thank god for the atomic bomb." An even wider range of ideological positions is represented on the side of the critics: Lifschultz and Bird have recovered an anti-bomb editorial from the paleo-right-wing 'Human Events' and placed it alongside the observations of Mahatma Gandhi and Norman Thomas. As the editors put it, "the usual distinctions of left and right on economic and social issues were not reliable guides which could accurately predt what people thought about Hiroshima."

A substantial section of the book contains memoirs of a few survivors. These memoirs underscore the enduring reality that it was civilians, not military objectives, who were then, and remain, the prime target of nuclear weapons.

Hiroshima's Shadow is perhaps the most comprehensive and balanced collection of essays to date on the decision to use atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

While some insist on a single interpretation of these events and label any reinterpretation as unpatriotic or unAmerican, the New York Times put it best: "The real betrayal of American tradition would be to insist on a single version of history or to make it the property of the state or any group. History in America is based on freedom of inquiry and discussion, which is one reason why Americans have given their lives to defend it."

Here is an extract from my review of 'Hiroshima's Shadows', that appeared in 'New Politics', no. 25 (Summer 1998):

'Hiroshima's Shadow: Writings on the Denial of History and the Smithsonian Controversy' is an enormous, and aesthetically handsome work, bringing together nearly 50 essays between between 1945 and 1997 by scholars, military, political and religious leaders, independent intellectuals, and survivors of the atomic bombings. The book is unusual in that, though it has a strong editorial point of view, the editors unflinchingly present voices from all sides of the argument.

The contribors include Albert Camus, Dwight Macdonald, Lewis Mumford, Mary McCarthy, A.J. Muste, among others. Defenders of the bomb include Charles Krauthammer who says that we should "let the Japanese commemorate the catastrophe they brought on themselves" (rather than mourn the use of the bomb), and Paul Fussel, an English professor and ex-front line combatant, who raises the slogan, "thank god for the atomic bomb." An even wider range of ideological positions is represented on the side of the critics: Lifschultz and Bird have recovered an anti-bomb editorial from the paleo-right-wing 'Human Events' and placed it alongside the observations of Mahatma Gandhi and Norman Thomas. As the editors put it, "the usual distinctions of left and right on economic and social issues were not reliable guides which could accurately predict what people thought about Hiroshima."

A substantial section of the book contains memoirs of a few survivors. These memoirs underscore the enduring reality that it was civilians, not military objectives, who were then, and remain, the prime target of nuclear weapons.

I am reading this book, so I thought I'd check to see what others have said about it. As I expected, the reviews online come from cheerleaders of the revisionist camp. Personally, I find the book to be useful information from the leftist perspective. I keep thinking: yes, yes, all that is true enough, but from the information available to Truman in July 1945, did he have any alternative but to authorize the use of the bomb?

I'll post further thoughts on my website.

-- Dan Ford