An Air Force Association Special Report

The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay The Air Force Association The Air Force Association (AFA) is an independent, nonprofit civilian organiza- tion promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation. AFA publishes Air Force Magazine, sponsors national symposia, and disseminates infor- mation through outreach programs of its affiliate, the Aerospace Education Founda- tion. Learn more about AFA by visiting us on the Web at www.afa.org.

The Aerospace Education Foundation The Aerospace Education Foundation (AEF) is dedicated to ensuring America’s aerospace excellence through education, scholarships, grants, awards, and public awareness programs. The Foundation also publishes a series of studies and forums on aerospace and national security. The Eaker Institute is the public policy and research arm of AEF.

AEF works through a network of thou- sands of Air Force Association members and more than 200 chapters to distrib- ute educational material to schools and concerned citizens. An example of this includes “Visions of Exploration,” an AEF/USA Today multi-disciplinary sci- ence, math, and social studies program. To find out how you can support aerospace excellence visit us on the Web at www. aef.org.

© 2004 The Air Force Association

Published 2004 by Aerospace Education Foundation 1501 Lee Highway Arlington VA 22209-1198 Tel: (703) 247-5839 Produced by the staff of Air Force Magazine Fax: (703) 247-5853 Design by Guy Aceto, Art Director An Air Force Association Special Report

The Smithsonian and the Enola Gay

By John T. Correll

April 2004

Front cover: The huge B-29 bomber Enola Gay, which dropped an atomic bomb on Japan, is one of the world’s most famous airplanes. It is shown here on exhibit at the Smithsonian’s new Udvar–Hazy Center, outside Washington, D.C. Photo by Paul Kennedy 2

August 1945. The Enola Gay returns to Tinian after its world- shaking mission. Half of Hiroshima was destroyed, but the atomic attack helped end a war in which millions died at the hands of Imperial Japan. n AUG. 6, 1945, the B-29 Enola Gay and Congressional outrage, and the Odropped the first atomic bomb museum director was fired. on Hiroshima. A second bomb fell on Under new management, the Air and Nagasaki Aug. 9. Japan surrendered Space Museum returned to its mission Aug. 15. to collect, preserve, and display historic At Hiroshima, more than half the city aircraft and spacecraft. was destroyed in a flash, and 80,000 were From 1995 to 1998, the museum killed instantly. The Nagasaki bomb killed displayed the forward fuselage of the 40,000.1 Enola Gay in a depoliticized exhibit that However, these missions brought an drew four million visitors, the most in the end to a war in which 17 million people museum’s history for a special exhibition. had died at the hands of the Japanese Visitor comments were overwhelmingly empire between 1931 and 1945.2 Until favorable. 1 Counts vary from 60,000 to 80,000 (or more) at Hiroshima, the atomic bombs fell, Japan had not been In December 2003, the museum put the from 35,000 to 60,000 at Nagasaki. ready to end the war. Enola Gay, fully assembled, on permanent Estimates of subsequent deaths due to radiation effects are unreliable. By eliminating the need for an inva- exhibition at its new Steven F. Udvar–Hazy They “have been sharpened by the sion of the Japanese home islands, the Center, adjacent to Dulles Airport at Chan- tendency of anti-nuclear activists atomic bombs prevented casualties, both tilly, Va. in and outside of Japan to inflate the figures for shock value.” Ken American and Japanese, that would have The controversy never died. In recent Ringle, “A Fallout Over Numbers,” exceeded the death tolls at Hiroshima and years, a host of books and articles have Washington Post, Aug. 5, 1995. Nagasaki combined. been written about it by people who have 2 Robert P. Newman. Truman and The bombing of Hiroshima was a not bothered to check the facts. Here is the Hiroshima Cult. Michigan State University Press, 1995, p. 138. famous event, a defining moment of the what really happened. 20th century, but the aircraft that flew the mission was largely forgotten and left to A Museum With a Message deteriorate, until restoration finally began The Smithsonian accepted the Enola in 1984. Gay in good condition July 3, 1949, at Fifty years after Hiroshima, the airplane the Air Force Association Convention in flew into controversy of a different sort. Chicago. It was moved temporarily to In the 1990s, the Smithsonian Institution’s a base in Texas and then, from 1953 to National Air and Space Museum laid plans 1960, was stored outside, unlocked, at to use the Enola Gay as a prop in a politi- Andrews AFB, Md. In 1960, it was disas- cal horror show. It depicted the Japanese sembled and stored at the Smithsonian’s more as victims than as aggressors in restoration facility in Suitland, Md. World War II. Bockscar, the B-29 that flew the When the museum’s plans were Nagasaki mission, has been displayed revealed, initially by an article in Air at the US Air Force Museum in Dayton, Force Magazine in 1994, a raging con- Ohio, since 1961. But even when the troversy ensued. The exhibition was Smithsonian opened the National Air canceled in 1995 in response to public and Space Museum in Washington in 1976, there was no move to exhibit the The museum was influenced signifi- 3 “The Shape of American History,” 3 Washington Post, Jan. 28, 1994. Enola Gay. cantly by historians of the so-called “Revi- 4 Wilcomb E. Washburn, “The In part, the Smithsonian’s reluctance sionist” persuasion, who disputed the con- Smithsonian and the Enola Gay,” to display the Enola Gay was because ventional interpretation of the Cold War The National Interest, Summer it was controversial, but another con- and cast doubt on actions, statements, and 1995. sideration was that the airplane was too motives of the United States.5 In the case 5 Robert James Maddox. The New Left and the Origins of the Cold big—99 feet long, with a wingspan of of the Enola Gay, the Revisionists held War. Princeton University Press, 141 feet—to fit, fully assembled, into the that the bombing of Hiroshima was un- 1973. museum. necessary and immoral. 6 Matin Harwit, interview with John Restoration of Enola Gay finally be- Martin O. Harwit became director of Correll, Feb. 8, 1994. gan in December 1984 and plans to dis- the Air and Space Museum Aug. 17, 1987. play it, or part of it, followed in 1987. Previously, he had been a professor of By then, new political winds were astronomy at Cornell University. Harwit blowing at the Smithsonian Institution. was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia, grew In the 1980s, the National Air and up in Istanbul, Turkey, and came to the Flight and Ground Space Museum veered away from United States at age 15 in 1946. While Crews. Front row, (l-r): Sgt. Joseph Siborik its mission to collect, preserve, and serving in the US Army, 1955-57, Harwit (radar operator); SSgt. display aviation and space artifacts. was assigned to the nuclear weapons George Caron (tail It was part of broader cultural tests at Eniwetok and Bikini Atolls in the gun-ner); PFC Richard change at the Smithsonian, which Marshall Islands. Nel-son (radio operator); the Washington Post described as a He acknowledged that the experience Sgt. Robert Shumard “move away from the traditional he- “inevitably” influenced his thoughts about (asst. engineer); SSgt. roes, politicians, and objects in glass the Enola Gay exhibit. “I think anybody Wyatt Duzenberry (flight cases and toward a wide, fluid, social- who has ever seen a hydrogen bomb engineer). Standing: history approach.”3 go off at fairly close range knows that Lt. Col. John Porter “From an ideological point of view,” you don’t ever want to see that used on (ground maintenance 6 officer); Capt. Theodore said Wilcomb E. Washburn, the Smith- people,” he said. Van Kirk (navigator); sonian’s director of American Studies Plans for showing the Enola Gay began Maj. Thomas Ferebee since 1965, the shift “usually meant shortly after Harwit’s arrival. “In October (bombadier); Col. Paul moving to the political left and to a 1987, I assembled a distinguished external Tibbets (509th com- view of the United States as more often advisory committee and first examined mander and pilot); Capt. than not as the cause of the world’s the anticipated complexities surrounding Robert Lewis (co-pilot); problems.”4 a serious exhibition of the Enola Gay,” Lt. Jacob Beser (radar countermeasure officer). Not pictured: Navy Capt. William Parsons (ord- nance officer); Lt. Morris Jeppson (asst. ordnance officer); TSgt. Walter McCaleb (ground crew); Sgt. Leonard Markley (ground crew); Sgt. Jean Cooper (ground crew); Cpl. Frank Duffy (ground crew); Cpl. John Jack- son (ground crew); Cpl. Harold Olson (ground crew); PFC John Les- niewski (ground crew). On Flight: Beser, Caron, Duzenbury, Ferebee, Jeppson, Lewis, Nelson, Parsons, Shumard, Stiborik, Tibbets, and Van Kirk. 4 Harwit said in his 1996 book, An Exhibit The next member of the team, and the Denied: Lobbying the History of the official curator, was Michael J. Neufeld. Enola Gay.7 “When the museum sought in 1990 to In a 1988 interview with the Wash- hire a lead curator for the exhibition ington Post, Harwit described plans for of the Enola Gay we followed federal 7 Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied: a series of programs on strategic bomb- procedures and first approached numer- Lobbying the History of Enola Gay. Copernicus, 1996, preface, p. ix. ing “as a counterpoint to the World War ous senior American scholars, but none of 8 Elizabeth Kastor, “At Air & Space, II gallery we have now, which portrays them were willing or available to take on Ideas on the Wing,” Washington the heroism of the airmen but neglects this complex task,” Harwit said. “Finding Post, Oct. 11, 1988; Harwit, An to mention in any real sense the misery none, we offered the position to Mike Exhibit Denied, pp. 54-60. of war. ... I think we just can’t afford to Neufeld, a Canadian citizen who clearly 9 Howard Means, “The Quiet 11 Revolutionary,” Washingtonian, make war a heroic event where people had the required credentials.” August 1987. could prove their manliness and then In a letter quoted by Harwit, the histo- 8 10 Tom D. Crouch, memo to Harwit, come home to woo the fair damsel.” rian of the Air Force, Richard P. Hallion, Nov. 8, 1990. Harwit’s thoughts were in harmony described Neufeld as “a Canadian with 11 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 51. with those of Robert McCormick Adams, strong antiwar/anti-AF prejudice.” Harwit 12 Richard Hallion, letter to Lt. Gen. who had been secretary of the Smithso- said, “On what basis Hallion should have Tom McInerney, Air Force Assistant nian Institution since 1984. “Take the Air labeled Neufeld in this fashion I do not Vice Chief of Staff, Sept. 8, 1993, 12 quoted by Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, and Space Museum,” Adams told Wash- know.” p. 202. ingtonian magazine in 1987.9 “What With that, the museum’s three main fig- 13 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 212; are the responsibilities of a museum ures in the controversy—Harwit, Crouch, “The Crossroads: The End of World to deal with the destruction caused by and Neufeld—were in place. War II, the Atomic Bomb, and the Onset of the Cold War,” exhibition airpower?” Neufeld, as lead curator, coordinated planning document, July 1993. the script, assisted by Crouch, “who acted Assembling a Team as manager of the curatorial team,” and by Harwit began to assemble his team for two “young curators,” Thomas Dietz and the Enola Gay exhibit. It would be head- Joanne M. Gernstein. Work on the script ed by Tom D. Crouch, chairman of the began when the planning document was Aeronautics Department, who sent Harwit approved in July 1993.13 a preliminary plan for an exhibition that Dietz and Gernstein were assis- would “draw national and international tant curators on another exhibition, attention to our museum and would avoid “Legend, Memory, and the Great War the impression that we are only ‘celebrat- in the Air,” which opened in 1991. It ing’ Hiroshima and Nagasaki.”10 was another indication of the cultural

Stable Mate. Bockscar, the B-29 that flew the Aug. 9, 1945, Nagasaki mission, has been displayed since 1961 at the United States Air Force Museum at Wright–Patterson Air Force Base near Dayton, Ohio. 5

Postwar. Within a few months of Japan’s surrender, the Enola Gay left Tinian for a new home—Roswell AAF, N.M. (shown here). The bomber later flew in the Operation Crossroads atomic test program in drift at the museum. It emphasized ■ “The [Combat in the Pacific] the Pacific. the horrors of World War I and took a subunit’s purpose will be to show hostile view toward airpower in that how different the Pacific war was for conflict. Americans—no quarter was given and The curators expanded on their few prisoners were taken—as well views in a companion book to the as for the Japanese, who increasingly exhibit in which they said that World felt compelled to make the ultimate War I had cast “the long shadow of sacrifice to defend the emperor and strategic bombing” on events ever nation.” since. They gave credence to specula- tion that “70,000 civilians were killed ■ “Neither the atomic bomb nor an as an aftermath of the bombing cam- invasion was probably needed to end paign in the recent Gulf War.” They the Pacific war, but this is more obvious said, “wherever the truth lies, the in hindsight than it was at the time.” 14 Dominick A. Pisano, Thomas J. fact remains that innocent civilians Dietz, Joanne M. Gernstein, and Karl S. Schneide. Legend, Memory, and died as a result of the bombing and ■ The “emotional center” of the exhibi- the Great War in the Air. University of that governments on all sides, in their tion would be Unit 4 on Hiroshima and Washington Press, 1992. eagerness to demonstrate the latest Nagasaki. 15 Harwit, interview with John Correll, developments in military technology, Feb. 8, 1994. are unrepentant.”14 ■ “When visitors go from Unit 3 to Unit 4, 16 Tom Crouch, “A Response to the Secretary,” memo for Harwit, July Harwit, responding to questions about they will be immediately hit by a drastic 21, 1993. the “Legend, Memory” exhibit, said it was change of mood and perspective: from 17 “The Crossroads” planning important to include the perspective well-lit and airy to gloomy and oppres- document, July 1993. There had been that, “in many cases, what had started out sive.” four previous concept documents. as a military tool escalated into destroy- ing very large segments of the civilian ■ “Photos of victims, enlarged to life population.”15 size, stare out at the visitor.” Crouch said the museum had to make a basic choice on how to exhibit the Enola ■ Artifacts would be borrowed from Gay. In a memo to Harwit, he said, “Do Hiroshima and Nagasaki: burned watches, you want to do an exhibition intended to broken wall clocks, “stark pictures of make veterans feel good, or do you want burned-in shadows.” an exhibition that will lead our visitors to think about the consequences of the ■ “A schoolgirl’s lunch box with atomic bombing of Japan? Frankly, I don’t completely burned contents, burned think we can do both.”16 and shredded clothing, and melted and What the curators had in mind, both in broken religious objects. Where possible, terms of message and shock value, was photos of the persons who owned or clear from the 16-page July 1993 planning wore these artifacts ... .” document.17 A Letter From Burr Bennett world asking the Smithsonian to dis- In the 1980s, former B-29 crew mem- play the plane proudly, or give it to a bers and other World War II veterans museum that will.”18 (By the summer of 6 began campaigning for restoration of the 1995, Bennett and his colleagues would Enola Gay. The Smithsonian and Con- collect almost 25,000 signatures on gress were bombarded with letters from their petition.) “five old men,” as they described them- Bennett’s letter came to me, as editor in selves, calling for “proud display of the chief of Air Force Magazine. As he asked, 18 Burr Bennett, letter to John Correll, I gave copies of it to AFA officials, but I Aug. 6, 1993. Enola Gay.” The “five old men,” active through- was not very impressed. “My quick take is 19 Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 199. out the controversy, were William A. that the Air & Space Museum isn’t quite as Rooney of Wilmette, Ill., W. Burr Ben- guilty as it’s said to be,” I said in an Aug. 10 nett Jr., of Northbrook, Ill., Donald C. note to AFA Executive Director Monroe W. Rehl of Fountaintown, Ind., Ben Nicks Hatch Jr. of Shawnee, Kan., and Frank Stewart of We soon discovered that Bennett was Indianapolis. right, and the situation at the museum Other voices, military veterans and was much worse than he knew. aviation enthusiasts, also complained As chance would have it, and unrelated about the social drift at the museum, but to the Bennett correspondence, AFA such opinions were of limited interest to heard from the museum shortly thereafter. the curators. Harwit, having been told by one of his The Air Force Association (AFA) en- advisors that AFA might be a source of tered the picture in August 1993, when financial support for the exhibit,19 called the association’s journal, Air Force Executive Director Hatch on Aug. 20 and Magazine, published “In Aviation’s sent him a copy of the July planning docu- Attic,” a pictorial feature on aircraft res- ment. toration by the Air and Space Museum. AFA was open to the idea of criti- The Enola Gay was on the cover. That cal, even controversial, treatment of drew a letter from Bennett, one of the the subject. As Air Force Magazine had five old men. reported more than once, Gen. Henry “I am one of a small group of B-29 H. “Hap” Arnold—wartime leader of the veterans of World War II engaged in a Army Air Forces and founding father of struggle with the Smithsonian Institu- AFA—had not believed it was neces- tion to display the Enola Gay proudly,” sary to use the atomic bombs to win he wrote. “Our committee has collected the war. over 5,000 signatures from around the However, what the museum was put-

Possession. On July 3, 1949, the Smithsonian took possession of the Enola Gay at the AFA convention in Chicago. It was moved to a base in Texas, then to Andrews AFB, Md. In 1960, it was disassembled and put into storage. At the microphone are (l-r): Carl Mitman (Smithsonian), Col. Paul Tibbets, Maj. Thomas Ferebee, and Maj. Gen. Emmett O’Donnell (15th Air Force commander). 7

Harwitt’s Folly. Martin Harwit, the NASM director, once said, “We just can’t afford to make war a heroic event where people could prove their manliness and then come home to woo the fair damsel.” He was ting together was not a critical analysis. It a copy two weeks earlier—no strings forced out in 1995. was a one-sided, antinuclear rant. attached—from sources, which are not Hatch replied to Harwit by letter on disclosed. That was the copy, not the Sept. 12. “The paper says the Smithson- one Harwit sent to Hatch, that we used ian is non-partisan, taking no position on for the article and which we later repro- the ‘difficult moral and political ques- duced and passed out. tions’, but the full text does not bear out The “Crossroads” exhibition was that statement,” Hatch said. “Similarly, scheduled to run from May 1995 to Janu- you assure me that the exhibition will ary 1996, overlapping the 50th anniver- ‘honor the bravery of the veterans,’ but sary in August 1995 of the mission of the that theme is virtually nonexistent in the Enola Gay. proposal as drafted.” Despite some hedging, the script said Furthermore, Hatch said, “the concept the atomic bomb “played a crucial role in paper treats Japan and the United States ending the Pacific war quickly.” in the war as if their participation were The script also contained two lines morally equivalent. If anything, incredibly, that were about to become infamous: it gives the benefit of opinion to Japan, “For most Americans this war was which was the aggressor.” fundamentally different than the one Hatch and I met with Harwit, Crouch, waged against Germany and Italy—it and Neufeld at the museum Nov. 19. was a war of vengeance. For most We found them willing to talk, but they Japanese, it was a war to defend their were not responsive. Harwit, buoyed unique culture against Western imperial- by his curators, his convictions, and his ism.” If that seemed to suggest that the advisory panel of scholars and histo- Japanese were the victims rather than rians, put little importance on AFA’s the aggressors in World War II, there concerns. was more to come. In Section 1 of the exhibit, “A Fight to The “Crossroads” Script the Finish,” the suicide kamikaze bomb- On Jan. 31, 1994, Harwit sent Hatch ers were portrayed as valiant defenders a copy of the just-completed script of the homeland, embodying the samurai for the exhibition. The title was “The values of self-sacrifice and devotion to the Crossroads: The End of World War II, the emperor, carrying along with them “dolls Atomic Bomb, and the Origins of the belonging to their daughters or family Cold War.” photographs to insure the success of Over the years, Harwit has made their crash dives.” much of his allegation that AFA used There was no comparable recogni- this copy of the script for the Air Force tion of American bravery or sacrifice. Magazine article in April 1994 and Instead, there was Frank Sinatra. The released it to Congress and the news script minimized the impact of the media. We did not. Unbeknown to Har- war on the American home front. “For wit, Air Force Magazine had received many Americans,” it said, “combat in NASM photo

8

Cold Storage.The Enola Gay cockpit section can be seen at the center of this photo, behind the fuselage (front left) of a famous B-17, The Swoose. The disassembled B-29 was stored at NASM’s center at Silver Hill, Md. the Pacific remained a distant series of sections. But Section 4, “Ground Zero: events.” But, with stunning understate- Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” had enough ment, it noted that “the cost of victory politics for several exhibitions. The in American lives” was “a very real theatrical lighting, “from well-lit and airy concern for all with loved ones in the to gloomy and oppressive,” set the stage. Pacific.” No opportunity was missed to tug at the A few pages later, the script said that heartstrings. A kitten could not simply “American youngsters with time on be dead. It had to glare “with eternally their hands and money in their pockets locked eyes.” transformed a New Jersey band singer There was Reiko Watanabe’s lunch named Frank Sinatra into the first teen box. “Inside are the carbonized remains entertainment idol.” There was a photo of sweet green peas and polished rice, of Sinatra. Visitors were not likely to a rare wartime luxury.” And Miyoko miss the counterpoint with grim images Osugi’s shoe. Her body was not found, of the Japanese home front: death, hun- but one discolored clog was recovered. ger, privation. “The blast of heat from the initial ex- Section 2 of the exhibition, “The plosion apparently darkened the outer Decision to Drop the Bomb,” was laden portion of the clog not covered by her with one-sided speculation. Japan’s foot.” peace initiatives were said to have There were some 40 photos and been frustrated by “die-hard militarists artifacts related to women, children, and who wished to fight on.” By contrast, mutilated religious objects. There was also the script depicted the US and its lead- graphic emphasis on survivors with flash ers as unswervingly belligerent. “Most burns, scars, and disfiguring. Americans despised the Japanese and In Section 5, “The Legacy of Hiroshima it was difficult to back away from the and Nagasaki,” the main display labels policy of ‘unconditional surrender’ laid delivered the message. Among them: down by the Allied leaders in 1943,” it “The Cold War and the Arms Race”; “The said. Failure of International Control”; “More The curators cast doubt on the pros- Bombs and Bigger Bombs”; “A World pect of high casualties in an invasion Gone ‘M.A.D.’” of Japan (which was the alternative to Little attention was given to the years dropping the bomb). The script said it of Japanese aggression and atrocities “appears likely that post-war estimates of that led to the circumstances of 1945. a half-million deaths were too high, but The script focused on the last six many tens of thousands of dead were a months of the war, when the people real possibility.” Japan had attacked were hitting back Section 3, “Delivering the Bomb,” was and closing in. to be built around the forward fuse- The curators never lost sight of the lage of the Enola Gay, and contained Japanese perspective. Harwit acknowl- less political baggage than the other edged that museum officials had talked Museum Floor Plan for the “Crossroads” Exhibit

9

with the Japanese while developing the The first notice by the press was “Re- exhibition plan “because we wanted to writing History,” a segment in the “Inside make sure we also included the point the Beltway” column in the March 28 20 Martin Harwit interview with John of view of the vanquished as well as Washington Times. It paraphrased me Correll, Feb. 8, 1994. 20 the point of view of the victors.” (accurately) as saying the exhibit was 21 Stephen P. Aubin, letter to John “skewed toward the Japanese victims of McCaslin, “Inside the Beltway,” The Plan Exposed the bomb, with little regard for the con- Washington Times, April 4, 1994. Martin Harwit and his curators were text of the times in which the bomb was attuned only to others on the same dropped.” political wavelength. We decided it was Harwit’s response, published in time for the public to know what was “Inside the Beltway,” March 31, said going on. my accusations were “simply not true.” I wrote “War Stories at Air and Space” He said, “The exhibition describes the and a companion article, “The Mission ‘naked brutality’ of Japanese forces in That Launched the Enola Gay,” for the concrete terms, calling attention to the April 1994 issue of Air Force Magazine. rape of Nanking, the treatment of POWs, Longer, fully documented versions of the use of Chinese and Koreans as slave these articles were circulated in advance laborers, and the conduct of biological to the news media and others on March and chemical experiments on human 15 by Stephen P. Aubin, AFA director of victims.” communications. On April 4, AFA’s Aubin delivered a Up to then, the museum’s plan was copy of the exhibition script to the known only to a few people, mostly cura- newspaper “so that you may judge for tors and advisors. The Air Force Magazine yourself.”21 article revealed it to the public and the On April 5, AFA representatives met news media. with Ron Stroman, majority staff direc- tor, and Marty Morgan, minority staff di- communications director Aubin circu- rector, of the House Government Opera- lated copies to Congress, the news me- tions Committee on Human Resources dia, other veterans groups, and anyone 10 and Intergovernmental Relations to give else who showed an interest. them materials and discuss the con- troversy. They asked for more detailed Internal Admissions information. One of the most astounding develop- On April 7, Air Force Magazine pro- ments in the entire controversy was an 22 John Correll, “Analysis of Air duced a content analysis of the script, April 16 internal memo from Harwit to & Space Museum Script,” April 7, 1994. which we sent to Stroman and Morgan his exhibition staff, explicitly agreeing the next day. We also made a broader with many of the points that Air Force 23 Martin Harwit, “Comments on Crossroads,” April 16, 1994. Air release. The content analysis found Magazine had made (Harwit’s numeri- Force Magazine received copies of ample evidence of imbalance.22 cal references are to script pages):23 this document from three different ■ sources. “Though I carefully read the exhi- ■ 49 photos of Japanese casualties. bition script a month ago, I evidently ■ 3 photos of American casualties. paid greater attention to accuracy than to balance. ... A second reading shows ■ 302 total text pages in script. that we do have a lack of balance and ■ 3 text pages with references to that much of the criticism that has Japanese atrocities. been levied against us is understand- ■ 66 text pages on ground zero at able.” Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ■ “We talk of the heavy bombing of ■ 13 text pages on Japanese casualties, Tokyo (100-32, 33), show great empathy suffering, damage from earlier B-29 for Japanese mothers (100-34), but are missions. strangely quiet about similar losses to Americans and our own Allies in Europe ■ 2 text pages on Japan’s search for and Asia.” a diplomatic solution. ■ “We show terrible pictures of human ■ 4 text pages on US avoidance of a suffering in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in diplomatic solution. Section 400, without earlier, in Section 100, showing pictures of the suffering ■ 1 aggressive, anti-American the Japanese had inflicted in China, in the statement by Japanese. camps they set up for Dutch and British ■ 11 aggressive, anti-Japanese state- civilians and military, and US prisoners of ments by Americans. war.” ■ “We do not note that conditions in In the 559-page script (302 pages of the American internment camps were far text, 257 pages of graphics), there were more favorable than in Japanese intern- only four text references to Japanese ment camps, where slave labor conditions atrocities (the longest of them 16 lines) prevailed.” and one supporting photo. One of the ■ “The alternatives to the atomic bomb four text references was a peripheral are stated more as ‘probabilities’ than as reference within an item about US in- ‘speculations’ and are dwelled on more ternment of Japanese–Americans. than they should be.” The script avoided showing mem- ■ “Section 400 has far too many ex- bers of the Japanese armed services in plicit, horrible pictures.” military roles. (There were five pho- When AFA obtained and circulated tos of Japanese military members in copies of the memo, Harwit, who had military roles; 65 photos of US military been caught saying one thing in public members in military roles.) Thus, it and an opposite thing in private, was emphasized the military aggressiveness outraged and indignant. He com- of the US, minimized aggressiveness of plained that “a unique aspect of the Japan. Enola Gay exhibit was the substantial Thereafter, AFA content analyses volume of privileged correspondence of each successive script became a released by one of the lobbying orga- regular element in the controversy. Air nizations, the Air Force Association, Force Magazine did the analysis and even before the debate had fully sub- sided. These letters and memoranda The Tiger Team report was kept dramatically reveal how much those under wraps until August, when the who aggressively lobby Congress can museum finally provided a copy to Air gain for themselves.”24 Force Magazine in voluntary response 11 Despite his admissions in the memo, to a Freedom of Information Act re- Harwit continued publicly to insist that quest.27 AFA was wrong. Typical of this was a The museum’s own docents, or vol- letter to a veteran, in which Harwit unteer tour guides, also thought the ex- said, “After having read the article in hibition was going wrong. After meet- 24 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, preface, Air Force Magazine myself, I can cer- ing with the docents in March, Crouch p. viii. 25 Harwit to retired Air Force Col. Frank tainly understand your concerns. I sent a memo to Harwit on March 31: Easley, Alexandria, Va.., May 20, 1994. welcome this opportunity to set the “It did not go well with the docents Harwit was still sending out variations record straight. ... It should not come as last night. Many of them have now read of this letter several months later. a surprise to anyone that the Air Force the script, and the majority of those in 26 “Report of the National Air and Space Museum Review Team,” May Association ... was able to find clumsy or attendance were very angry about the 25, 1994. unrefined label text among the several exhibition.”28 27 Mike Fetters, assistant director for hundred pages which compromise the Harwit managed to make his rela- public affairs, National Air and Space total script.”25 tions with the docents worse by firing a Museum, letter to Correll, Aug. 15, On April 20, 1994, Harwit appointed volunteer, Frank Rabbitt, whom Harwit 1994. an internal “Tiger Team”—headed by a “permanently dismissed” for actively and 28 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 247. museum volunteer, retired Air Force Brig. publicly opposing the exhibit. “I felt that 29 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 273. Gen. William M. Constantine—to review volunteers joined the museum to help, 30 “Air and Space Museum Director 29 Resigns,” Air Force Magazine, June the script and “look for any signs of imbal- not oppose us, in our work.” 1995. ance.” Rabbitt’s fellow docents took to wear- 31 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 336.

A month later, the Tiger Team turned ing “Free Frank Rabbitt” signs as they 32 in a stinging report.26 The findings were conducted tours at the museum’s Garber Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 285. remarkably similar to the Air Force Maga- facility in Suitland, Md.30 (In January 1995, zine criticisms. The report cited numer- after the exhibition had been canceled, ous imbalances, including “depictions Harwit reinstated Rabbitt in a spirit of of Japanese as victims” and “insufficient “reconciliation.”) development of Japan’s extensive pre-war aggression.” The Curators Dig in The Tiger Team said, “The kamikaze To Harwit’s displeasure, AFA was and their sacred rites are given too not easy to shrug off. The Air Force much coverage,” and they are “char- Association “had not been content acterized as brave defenders of their just to offer advice; they insisted on homeland and as heroes treated with seeing their wishes carried out,” he reverence,” while there “is much less said. “Each change the museum made coverage accorded to the devastating evoked a triumphant cry from the AFA consequences of the kamikaze attacks, and a howl of dismay from academic including the thousands of Americans historians.”31 killed, wounded, or missing.” In hopes of neutralizing AFA, the mu- The script, the Tiger Team said, ap- seum devised a bizarre strategy. peared “to convey the impression that “Given the unyielding attitudes of the Japan was seeking peace, while the US AFA,” the Smithsonian decided in May to was seeking to obstruct means for a seek support from the American Legion negotiated settlement.” Whereas B-29 on the assumption that “the AFA, whose missions were characterized in the membership was only about 180,000, script as “burning cities,” “attacking would have to defer to such giants as cities,” and “razing cities,” there was the American Legion, with its 3.1 million “no reference to industrial complexes, members.”32 war-producing industries, or other This made no sense. Did museum of- ‘targets’ of military value in and around ficials imagine the American Legion would those cities.” There were many artifacts agree with their distorted view of World belonging to children, but none be- War II? The American Legion had already longing to soldiers, factory workers, or adopted a resolution objecting “vehement- government officials. ly” to the exhibition plan as “politically bi- 12 ased.”33 In any case, why would AFA “have Overall, though, the extent of the revi- to defer” to the American Legion? sion was far less than we had expected, In June, retired Brig. Gen. Paul W. Tibbets and the changes consisted of point ad- Jr., pilot of the Enola Gay and command- ditions and deletions that did not, in the er of the 509th Composite Bomb Group, aggregate, shift the balance or the context 33 National Executive Committee of which flew the atomic bomb missions, appreciably. the American Legion, Resolution No. 22, “Smithsonian Exhibition of called the proposed display “a package of The script was still interspersed with a the Enola Gay,” May 4-5, 1994. insults.”34 series of “Historical Controversies”: Would 34 Retired Brig. Gen. Paul W. Harwit said, “I was convinced that the Bomb Have Been Dropped on the Tibbets Jr., speech at the Airmen General Tibbets had never read our Germans? Did the Demand for Uncondi- Memorial Museum, Suitland, Md., June 8. script and knew about it only through tional Surrender Prolong the War? How 35 Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, newspapers or the warnings of close as- Important was the Soviet Factor in the De- 35 38 p. 290. sociates.” One reason Harwit may have cision to Drop the Bomb? Was a Warning 36 “On the Mark,” WAVA, Arlington, thought this was that the museum had Demonstration Possible? Was an Invasion Va., June 2, 1994. not sent Tibbets a copy of the script. But Inevitable Without the Bomb? Was the 37 “The Smithsonian Plan for AFA had. Decision to Drop the Bomb Justified? the Enola Gay: A Report on Tom Crouch and I appeared on a live Nearly all of the doubts and suspicions the Revisions,” June 28, 1994. Available on AFA Enola Gay archive. radio debate June 2. During the course of in the Historical Controversies were 38 The quotation marks were left it, Crouch mentioned a revised script. He aimed at the United States. over from previous script, which agreed on the air that we could have a The imbalance remained. Script No. 2, speculated that it was not so copy.36 which had 295 text pages, devoted less much a decision as a foregone conclusion that President The revised script was dated May 31, than one page and only eight visual im- Truman and his advisors had but AFA did not receive the promised ages to Japanese military activity prior to ignored alternatives to the bomb and proceeded with its use for copy until June 23. There were a num- 1945. The emphasis was still on Japanese diplomatic reasons. ber of changes. For example, it removed suffering. 11 of the 75 Ground Zero photos and The notorious “War of Vengeance” lines two of the 26 Ground Zero” artifacts. had been modified and now read: “For Creditably, the script added a photo of a most Americans, this war was different kneeling Australian airman, about to be from the one waged against Germany and beheaded in August 1945 after Japan had Italy: It was a war to defeat a vicious ag- surrendered. 37 gressor but also a war to punish Japan for The “Crossroads” title was gone. The Pearl Harbor and for the brutal treatment new title was “The Last Act: The Atomic of Allied prisoners. For most Japanese, Bomb and the End of World War II.” what had begun as a war of imperial con-

Biggest Ever. The Enola Gay had been

disassembled into 52 Photo by Paul Kennedy pieces for storage. Reassembly required 300,000 staff hours. Museum leaders call it the largest reassembly job the museum has ever attempted. Staff photo by Guy Aceto

13

Signature. The Enola Gay’s best-known feature was its huge vertical tail emblazoned with the letter “R” in a circle. By the time restoration began in 1984, the famous bomber had deteriorated and was in quest had become a battle to save their the Revisionists themselves. In 1994 poor condition. nation from destruction.” and 1995, we sent out hundreds of AFA urged more emphasis in the copies of these collected documents, script on the mobilized force waiting including the first version of the script, in the Japanese home islands to throw which the museum had not managed back an invasion: 2.3 million military to copyright. troops and four million civilians—not As an article in Washingtonian maga- counting the women, old men, and zine would later note, AFA “kept track of boys trained to resist by such means every piece of paper—official, unofficial, as strapping explosives to their bodies and private—that flew during the deba- and throwing themselves under advanc- cle, compiling them all in thick, green-cov- ing tanks; about 7,700 combat aircraft, ered books and distributing them around 39 See “The Decision That Launched 41 thousands of them kamikaze; tunnels, Washington.” the Enola Gay,” March 15, 1994, bunkers, and barbed wire in place along We often received the same document available from the AFA Enola Gay the shore.39 from more than one source. I. Michael archive. 40 Hearing transcript, Senate Rules Something else was different about Heyman, who would become secretary and Administration Committee, this script. The cover page carried a of the Smithsonian in September, told Senate Hearing 104-40, May 11-18, copyright notice. Photocopying of the Harwit that “your museum is like a sieve.” 1995, p. 80-81. document was forbidden without writ- Harwit himself used the documents from 41 Thomas B. Allen and Norman Polmar, “Blown Away,” ten permission from the Smithsonian AFA in writing his book, An Exhibit Washingtonian, August 1995. Institution. Obviously, this was intended Denied. “The information contained in 42 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. to prevent AFA from giving copies to these files was invaluable,” he said in the 360, xv. Congress, the press, or other veterans preface.42 groups. It worked. We did not copy or Meanwhile, Harwit continued to stri- distribute Script No. 2 or any of the sub- dently denounce Air Force Magazine sequent revisions. and AFA. In a letter to the Air Force At a hearing a year later, Sen. Ted Ste- Chief of Staff, Gen. Merrill A. McPeak, vens (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate on July 15, Harwit said, “Let me assure Rules and Administration Committee, you that we at the museum share your which had oversight responsibility for dismay at the outcry generated by the the Smithsonian, questioned the legality article in Air Force Magazine’s April of the Smithsonian copyrighting a script issue. ... I sent in a forceful rejection written for the government by federal of the article’s allegations in the May employees.40 issue. ... “All this [the articles and other Leaking Like a Sieve AFA activity] has only increased the AFA collected documents—ours, number of bitter letters from veterans theirs, letters from and to veterans, pa- and their families. Without wishing pers of various activists. Aubin provid- to argue over whether this arousal of ed copies to anyone who wanted them: passions was necessary, I am con- press, Congress, other veterans groups, vinced that, if it continues, it will Photo by Paul Kennedy

14

Spark. In August 1993, Air Force Magazine published a pictorial article about the National Air and Space Museum. On the cover appeared a photo of the Enola Gay’s restored cockpit, which attracted much attention.

work against the best interests of all overall impression, even from this revised concerned.” script, is that the Japanese, despite 15 There was much talk, then and later, years of aggression, atrocities, and brutal- about the script being a work in progress ity, were the victims. ... The curators who and about how the curators were open wrote the script are still pushing the the- to change if only we would get off their sis that the atomic bomb shouldn’t have backs. Thus, it was another embarrassment been dropped.”46 for the museum when we obtained and In April, Hallion had written to the circulated a June 21 memo from Neufeld, director of the 50th Anniversary of telling his advisors that the revisions were World War II Commemoration Com- essentially over. mittee that “our colleagues—profes- “If you find any factual errors or if you sional military historians from all the

43 Michael J. Neufeld, memo to object strongly to certain formulations in services—have reviewed the NASM’s advisory board members and military the revised script, I would be happy to script. They, too, unanimously consider historians, June 21, 1994. hear them,” Neufeld wrote.43 “But, if the it a poor script, lacking balance and 44 Tom Crouch to Annette L. McEvoy, exhibit is to be opened in late May 1995, context.”47 Springfield, Mo., Aug. 8, 1994. as planned, we must now move on to the Furthermore, in his charge to the 45 E.g., Richard Hallion, letter to production and construction phase. This Tiger Team in April, Harwit said that Crouch, April 13, 1994: “I remain concerned about the way the Enola script therefore must be considered a “a team of historians from different Gay exhibit is taking shape,” and “it finished product, minor wording changes branches of the military” had “ex- appears you are not incorporating our comments.” aside.” pressed dissatisfaction with the script’s In early August, the museum was still overall balance. In their opinion, it was 46 Eugene L. Meyer, “Dropping the Bomb: Smithsonian Exhibit Plans claiming that the exhibition script had flawed in its portrayal of Japanese and Detonates Controversy,” Washington strong backing from service historians. In American history, activities, and cus- Post, July 21, 1994. an Aug. 8, 1994, letter, for example, Crouch toms.”48 47 Hallion memo, “Enola Gay Exhibit,” wrote, “The members of the advisory By late summer, other veterans to retired Army Lt. Gen. Claude M. Kicklighter, April 19, 1994. committee were very generous in their groups had joined the fray. In addi- 48 Martin Harwit memo to Tiger Team praise of the document. Dr. Hallion [the tion to the American Legion, they review group, April 26, 1994, quoted Air Force historian] congratulated the included the Veterans of Foreign Wars, by Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 280. curators on an ‘impressive job’ and ‘a great the 20th Air Force Association (in script.’ ”44 1945, the Enola Gay was part of 20th Hallion had been expressing concerns Air Force), the Jewish War Veterans, about the script for months,45 and in July Bombardiers, Inc., the Retired Offi- had told the Washington Post that “the cers Association, the Military Order of the World Wars, the Retired Enlisted used the ‘Special Report’ Correll had Association, and the Daedalians. Burr produced to provide an ‘analysis’ of Bennett and the “five old men” kept the museum’s script, as in Aubin’s let- writing letters and collecting names ter to Congressional staffers Stroman 15 on their petition. and Morgan on April 8. Having gained Martin Harwit didn’t know it, but the credibility in this way, they had been landslide was about to begin. able to write the text that, with minor editing, became Senator Kassebaum’s The Controversy Explodes resolution.”52 49 Rep. Peter Blute (R–Mass.) And 23 other members of House of Twenty-four members of Congress sent In August, Executive Director Hatch Representatives, letter to Robert a letter Aug. 10 to Robert McCormick had written to Harwit, explaining McCormick Adams, Secretary of the Adams, then in his last days as secretary AFA’s position. “The Air Force Associa- Smithsonian, Aug. 10, 1994. of the Smithsonian, expressing “con- tion has made a good faith effort over 50 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 257. cern and dismay” about the intended a number of months to work with the 51 “Senate Prods Museum on Enola exhibit. They said the “revised script is museum before it became clear that Gay Exhibit,” Associated Press, Sept. 24, 1994. still biased, lacking context,” and that your curators are not interested in 52 “judging from recent public statements taking our suggestions seriously, or Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 260. 53 Herman S. Wolk, senior historian, by museum officials, it seems that Air and those from other veterans,” Hatch said. Center for Air Force History, memo Space is digging its heels in to defend an “Once it became clear that these con- for the record, “Conversation With Dr. indefensible position.”49 cerns were going to be largely ignored, Martin Harwit,” Aug. 23, 1994. Harwit interpreted this as manipulation we felt it necessary to make interested 54 Ken Ringle, “At Ground Zero,” by AFA. “The hand of the Air Force Associa- parties aware of your plans. Our ap- Washington Post, Sept. 26, 1994. tion could not have been clearer if the proach to the media and Congress has letter had been written on AFA stationery,” been to tell them to ‘judge for them- he said.50 selves.’ ” Adams offered the usual defenses. Intermittently, Harwit seemed to un- In an Aug. 16 letter to Rep. Peter Blute derstand. On Aug. 23, he told Air Force (R-Mass.), Adams described the script as historian Herman S. Wolk that he had “a work in progress” and “still only at an taken another look at the script, as rec- intermediate stage in an ongoing, itera- ommended by service historians, to see tive process.” whether his curators had made changes Letters from Congress kept coming. proposed by the historians. Rep. Ike Skelton (D–Mo.) wrote to Harwit “Harwit told me that his weekend Sept. 8, 1994, to say he was “outraged review showed that, in fact, the cura- by the sympathetic manner in which tors had failed to take those recom- Japanese imperialism is portrayed in the mendations, especially those of AF/HO,” Enola Gay exhibit” and that “it is a sad day Wolk said in his memo for the record. when the Smithsonian Institution must “Dr. Harwit emphasized that he had be urged to accurately report American been ‘taken aback at how little had history.” been done.’ There were some ‘word On Sept. 23, a Sense of the Senate changes here and there’ Harwit said, resolution on the Enola Gay exhibi- but clearly the curators had failed to tion, sponsored by Sen. Nancy L. Kasse- follow through. As he put it, this ‘had baum (R–Kan.), passed unanimously fallen through the cracks.’ ”53 (Emphasis on a voice vote. It declared the latest in original.) version of the script to be “Revisionist However, Harwit soon resumed his and offensive.”51 regular message, telling the Washing- Again, Harwit laid the Congressio- ton Post Sept. 23 that “We could have nal action to machinations by AFA. handled all this internally” if the first “To appreciate the magnitude of the script had not been made public. The Air Force Association’s influence, one controversy since then “hasn’t forced needs to note that they had first used on us any [script] changes we wouldn’t John Correll’s articles in Air Force have made ourselves.”54 Magazine, as well as their appearances The new secretary of the Smithson- on radio talk shows and on television, ian, I. Michael Heyman, who took office to alarm veterans’ organizations and Sept. 19, saw and acknowledged the the public,” Harwit said. “They had then problem right away. He told the Wash- 16 bomber. too crowdedforthebig museum, butitwas world’s mostpopular It quicklybecamethe in Washington, D.C. on theNationalMall Air andSpaceMuseum opened theNational 1976, theSmithsonian Downtown. Bennett, Dec.12,1994. 57 Washington Post, Has Anti-War GroupsUpinArms,” Peace for the p. 342-343.EugeneL.Meyer, “No 56 Washington Post, Heyman, AiringtheNation’s Attic,” 55 NoamChomsky, lettertoBurr MartinHarwit, JacquelineTrescott, “Michael Enola Gay: An ExhibitDenied OnJuly4, Oct.21,1994. Sept.20,1994. Exhibit Now , people in the traditional style. But these these But style. traditional the in people defenseless of thousands of hundreds of slaughter by another in treachery, and deceit by case one in inhabitants, their from stolen been had that colonies US two in bases Dec.7-8, 1941,bombing on crime a commit pines: did “Japan Philip the and Harbor Pearl about say to this had subsequently Chomsky,who history.” correct patriotically as moment the at perceived is what just not history—and nation’s our over debate of range the broad reflects faithfully that institution public a as credibility Smithsonian’s the defend to hope you can scholarship historical relevant the about informed ill- sources political from pressures resisting by “only that 16,saying Nov. Heyman Secretary to wrote ars” accurate.” was “fairly meeting the of account Dear’s Father said later Harwit media?” the to talked you haven’t Why before? in been you late. haven’t too Why been? You are you have saying, as “Where Harwit quoted as “exasperated.”He Harwit scribed de activists, the for spokesman the Harwit Sept. 20. the activists, thatthemessage about alarmed ticipation from theleft. Peace groups and exhibit veterans, by buthewelcomed par Scholars andActivists deficient.” was exhibition Post, ington Among those signing was Noam Noam was signing those Among schol and 48 “historians of group A and priest Dear, Jesuit John a Father Harwitresisted involvement inthe Enola Gay “Our first script for the the for script first “Our was changing, metwith 56 56 55 55 - - - - since, that no honest person could take take could person honest no that since, and before committed, regularly have we those of scale the in low so rank enough, real though crimes, Japanese US casualties and an equal number of of number equal an and casualties US million a to quarter-million a cost would invasion the him told had C.Marshall, Gen.Staff, George of Chief the Army that elsewhere, and memoirs his in sertions, as Truman’s rejected casualties. They US heavy avoiding than reasons other for bomb the dropped that Truman argued position. They Revisionists’ the to cal ties would nothave beenthatsevere. home islandsbeennecessary, thecasual ■ erations. domesticpoliticalconsid- driven by ■ impress theRussians. ■ on unconditionalsurrender. ■ without theatomicbomb. ■ ■ these: were movement the of ideas central the but Revisionists, individual among ences differ some were spiel. There sionist invasion.” for justification a as seriously very them Even hadaninvasion of theJapanese The decision tousethebombwas The USdropped thebombmainly to The USprolonged insist-ing thewar by The war would have beenover soon Japan was ontheverge ofsurrender. A low estimate of casualties was criti was casualties of estimate low A Revi the in themes six were There 57 57

NASM photo - - - - - the enemy.58 The Revisionists sneered at The Japanese Connection 17 these statements as self-serving, after- Another constituency important the-fact inventions by Truman. To shore to Harwit was the Japanese. On Dec. up their position, the Revisionists gave 19, 1994—almost six months after the credence to low casualty estimates and fact—Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Tex.) obtained attacked higher estimates. and released the minutes of the Air and 58 Truman letter to James. L. Cate, Jan. 12, 1953, reproduced by Frank The Revisionists arrogantly dispar- Space Museum’s July 5, 1994, senior staff Wesley Craven and Cate, ed. The aged the recollections of World War II meeting. Army Air Forces in World War II. Vol. veterans, saying that such memories The May script revision had been 5. University of Chicago Press, 1953. were not to be trusted after 50 years, translated into Japanese and was sent 59 Harwit, “The Enola Gay: A Nation’s, and a Museum’s, Dilemma,” especially on emotional issues. Yet, the by Federal Express to Japan, with a Washington Post, Aug. 7, 1994. same Revisionists gave full credence note “asking for a quick response,” the 60 Harwit, An Exhbit Denied, p. to the memories of the hibakusha, the minutes said. A museum spokesman 378-379. scarred and disfigured survivors from acknowledged that at least three of the 61 Michelle Mittelstadt, “Smithson-ian Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who were in- five full versions of the script were sent Sent Draft Scripts on A-Bomb to Japanese,” Associated Press, Dec. vited to appear at Revisionist programs to city officials in Nagasaki and Hiro- 19, 1994; Mittelstadt, “Lawmaker in the United States. shima for comment.61 Criticizes Smithsonian Handling of Activism by the Revisionist historians These were the same scripts that the Atom Bomb Exhibit,” Associated Press, Dec. 20, 1994. and the pacifists put pressure on Harwit museum had sought to keep out of the 62 “Johnson Exposes Japanese from another direction. He felt they “had hands of veterans groups and the Ameri- Involvement in Enola Gay Exhibit,” not been helpful” in this regard. How- can press. A former Smithsonian staff news release, Rep. Sam Johnson, ever, the views Harwit expressed were member told Johnson that the museum Dec. 19, 1994. similar to those of the Revisionists, and had spent more than $30,000 translating 63 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 150- he seemed to regard them as an impor- the scripts and express mailing them to 193, 268-269, 364-371. tant constituency. Japan.62 In an op-ed column Aug. 7, Harwit The early and continuing involvement wrote, “Two divergent but widely held of the Japanese was recounted by Har- views define the dilemma.” One view, he wit in his book, An Exhibit Denied.63 said, “appeals to our national self-image. In 1992, Harwit wrote to the director The other point of view, slower in com- general of the Japan Foundation say- ing to the fore, is more analytical, criti- ing that “it is of great concern to our cal in its acceptance of facts concerned museum to make sure this exhibition with historical context. It is complex, does not strain relations between our and in the eyes of some, discomfiting.”59 two countries.” To columnist Charley Reese, Harwit’s In April 1993, Harwit and Crouch visit- message was both clear and conde- ed Japan. Harwit chose Crouch to accom- scending. “In other words, there is the pany him because “his presence might re- dumb, patriotic view and the smart, so- assure the Japanese.” Crouch had been the phisticated, anti-American view,” Reese curator in 1986 of “A More Perfect Union,” wrote in a King Features column, Aug. an exhibition at the Museum of American 24. History that observed the 200th anniver- At a strategy meeting in January sary of the US Constitution by focusing 1995, Heyman suggested that perhaps on the internment of Japanese–Americans the exhibition should be shut down. “I during World War II. At Hiroshima, Harwit was aghast,” Harwit said. “We would and Crouch promised to “make a power- have lost our last hope of support from ful exhibition of the catastrophic effects like-minded people who also stood for of the bombing.” Their visit was regarded education as an important national goal. as a success, and two more visits to Japan I said I understood his fears, but our sup- by museum officials followed. porters, and particularly the academic Japanese sensitivities were a funda- community, would be outraged and ac- mental consideration for Harwit, who cuse us of capitulating. In the long term, wanted to avoid reviving “hard feel- these were the groups on whom we ings between the US and Japan.” It was would need to rely for help.”60 regrettable that “Such concerns never AP photo

18

Ground Zero. Children float paper lanterns at Hiroshima’s Atomic Bomb Dome. Museum officials felt a need to assure the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the exhibit would reflect the Japanese view. seemed to have occurred to the five visit would be a political disaster? “We old men and other veterans. ... To men all agreed that I could not go to Japan like Burr Bennett, Donald Rehl, and now and that we could not have the William Rooney, there were no moral Japanese come, either. But we could dilemmas at all,” Harwit said. “Truman not put this in writing,” Harwit said. had merely chosen to save their lives It was important not to get caught. instead of those of some Japanese. To “Heyman adamantly wanted to avoid a them this made obvious sense. ... It was ‘paper trail.’ Whatever we did needed Japanese lives or American. Nothing to be done verbally to leave no trace,” could be simpler. Where was the moral Harwit said. dilemma?” After a visit to the Japanese Embassy Meddling by the Air Force Association in Washington failed to turn off the threatened the relationship with Japan. visit, the idea arose that Harwit could “I knew that the AFA’s ideas about an “call the Hiroshima and Nagasaki mu- exhibition would be totally unacceptable seum directors, directly and confiden- to Japan and would precipitate an inter- tially, to tell them of the situation and national incident if followed through,” to see whether I could dissuade a visit Harwit said. and arrange for the artifact loans and In a letter to Secretary of the Air Force the videos without one. The important Sheila E. Widnall on July 18, 1994, Harwit thing was not to leave a paper trail that wrote, “I am most seriously concerned might be leaked.” that the changes in the exhibition demand- In January, Harwit was still struggling ed by the Air Force Association would, if to explain to the Japanese why their accepted, cause an uproar in Japan when visit would be unwise. At that point, the the exhibition opens.” issue would be resolved in a different Indeed, the Japanese were alarmed by way. criticism of the exhibition plans, and Har- wit felt a need to visit Japan “to reassure Backing and Filling the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Another revision—Script No. 3—ap- person.” Unfortunately, “the Senate resolu- peared Aug. 31. The curators continued tion, the continuing onslaught from the to retreat, word by word, and line by line, veterans organizations and the media, and but the structural, contextual, and ideo- the increasingly conservative attitude in logical problems remained. the United States soon made such a trip As before, the museum seemed eager to doubtful, at least until after the November explain away anything that questioned the elections.” sincerity of Japan’s quest for peace: For The Japanese decided that if Harwit example, the emperor “hoped that one could not come to them, they would final victory would force the Allies to offer send a delegation to Washington to better peace terms.” express their dismay face to face. How There was no serious effort to reduce to explain to the Japanese that such a the speculation about American actions and motives. The “Historical Controver- of the material that cast speculative doubt sies” had been removed per se, but most on actions and motives of the United of the “eliminated” material showed up States—or they could add that kind of 19 elsewhere. For example, the question material about Japan. “Was an Invasion Inevitable Without Thus far, the speculation was one-sid- the Bomb?”was now preceded by the ed. AFA pointed out several subjects on introductory word “Hindsight” instead the other side that were ripe for similar of “Historical Controversies.” questioning: Japan’s alleged quest for 64 See, e.g., “Developments in the Enola Gay Controversy,” memo, Aug. Two more revisions followed, Script peace in 1945; the emperor’s role in 22, 1994 (in AFA Enola Gay archive). No. 4 on Oct. 3 and No. 5 on Oct. 26. wartime policy and planning; why Japan 65 Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, They reduced the number of grisly did not move sooner to end the war, it p. 328-331; Rowan Scarborough, photos and artifacts, but the emotional being evident that the cause was lost; “Legion Enlisted on A-Bomb Exhibit,” punches and the imbalances were still popular Japanese support, before the Washington Times, Sept. 23, 1994. 66 “National Air And Space Museum there. A new section—labeled “Section war turned sour, for military aggression and the American Legion Announce 000,” entitled “The War in the Pacific”— to establish the Greater East Asia Co- Working Relationship Regarding was added Dec. 6. Museum officials Prosperity Sphere. Exhibition on the Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II,” NASM tried to create an illusion of balance The museum pegged its strategy on news release, Sept. 22, 1994. by allotting 4,000 square feet of floor dealing with the American Legion to 67 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. space to this added section, but most the exclusion of AFA and others. The 334-335. of the new space was taken up by a curators opened script negotiations Grumman F6F Hellcat carrier-based with the Legion Sept. 21 and an- fighter. The rest of the section was a nounced the arrangement at a news collection of pictures, some of them conference Sept. 22.65 pulled from other parts of the exhibit. The news release said the museum It did little to improve the overall bal- had “expanded the exhibition review ance. process beyond its original advisory AFA declined to participate in line-by- committee, to include additional schol- line negotiations and said it would base ars, military historians, and representa- its assessment on the overall message tives of the American Legion.”66 Others visitors took away with them. AFA said were pointedly not mentioned. consistently64 that the exhibition would So far as we could tell, the Legion’s not be acceptable if it fostered any of the views were about the same as ours. following impressions: We wished them well. But when the arrangement did not work out as ex- ■ That the Japanese were victims in pected, Harwit knew where the fault World War II, defending their nation and lay. culture against Western aggression. By November, Harwit said, “The pres- sure on the American Legion leadership ■ That the Americans were ruthless was mounting. They could not stay en- invaders, driven by racism, revenge, tirely aloof from their own membership, and blood lust. which had long been stirred up by the AFA’s and even the Legion’s own earlier ■ That the death, suffering, and horrors propaganda, and they could not entirely of war were borne unilaterally or unfairly defy the assembled strength of the other by a passive Japan. veterans organizations.”67 The idea of using the American Le- ■ That the roles of Japan and the US in gion to neutralize AFA had backfired. The World War II were morally equivalent. Legion was now leading the charge, while AFA continued to analyze and distribute ■ That the United States acted dishon- information about the museum’s plans estly, dishonorably, or immorally in its and scripts. decision to use the atomic bomb. By the beginning of 1995, “pressures on the Legion from other veterans The solution could be either subtrac- groups and individual veterans who tive or additive. The curators could resolve had been aroused by the AFA’s and the the imbalance either by taking out some Legion’s media campaigns, appeared Photo by Paul Kennedy

20

Squeezed. In 1995-98, NASM displayed the Enola Gay’s forward fuselage (here in protective covering) and a few other parts. The downtown museum was too small for the entire 99-foot-long, 141-foot- wide bomber. now to be leading to a tougher stance,” tion statement Jan. 18 calling for the Harwit said.68 exhibit to be “canceled immediately” The Legion had run out of patience with and for Congress “to conduct hearings Harwit. On Jan 4, 1995, National Command- into how the nation’s most visited and er William M. Detweiler recommended revered museum could mount such an that the organization “actively oppose” the exhibit.” The Legion said that “this ex- exhibit, which he said was “suspect from all hibit, in our opinion, so closely parallels perspectives.”69 the design, content, and conclusions of the Nagasaki Peace Museum as to defy Spin, Crash, and Burn coincidence.” On Jan. 9, 1995, Harwit struck again. Heyman initially stood by Harwit in Heyman had promised there would be the face of the Legion demands,71 but no more uncoordinated changes. With- soon had new reason to be exasper- out authorization—and to the horror of ated. On Jan. 20, with Harwit’s letter Smithsonian officials—Harwit wrote to to the Legion public knowledge and the American Legion, saying he had been with pressure mounting from veterans 68 Martin Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 375. persuaded by academic advice that the groups, Congress, and the news media, 69 William M. Detweiler, memo to casualty estimates for invasion of Japan in Harwit said he “thought [he] could use National Commander’s Advisory the script were too high, so he was chang- some dispassionate advice” and began Committee, “Recommended Final ing the script.70 placing telephone calls to Smithsonian Position on NASM Display,” Jan. 4, 1995. Among his other adjustments, Har- regents. Heyman—perhaps suspecting 70 “Before” and “After” versions of wit deleted the part of the script that that the calls sought more than “ad- the relevant section of the script are said US “casualties conceivably could vice”—was furious. He had Smithson- presented, side by side, in Harwit, An have risen to as many as a million (in- ian Undersecretary Constance Newman Exhibit Denied, p. 381-382. cluding a quarter of a million deaths). call Harwit and tell him to cease and 71 Eugene Meyer, “Smithsonian Stands 72 Firm on A-Bomb Exhibit,” Washington Added to the American losses would desist. Post, Jan. 19, 1995. have been perhaps five times as many Eighty-one members of Congress 72 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. Japanese casualties—military and civil- called, on Jan. 24, for “the immedi- 386-387. ian.” ate resignation or termination of Mr. 73 Letter to I. Michael Heyman The replacement words made a differ- Martin Harwit,” citing his “continuing from 81 members of House of Representatives, Jan. 24, 1995. ent point: “After the war, Truman often defiance and disregard for needed said that the invasion could have cost half improvements to the exhibit.”73 Twenty 74 Richard H. Kohn, “History at Risk: The Case of the Enola Gay,” in Edward a million or a million American casualties.” thousand subscribers to Smithsonian Linenthal and Tom Engelhardt, eds. The new script then discounted Truman’s Magazine had also complained about History Wars. Metropolitan Books, 74 1996, p. 162. statement with a dismissive tag line, “The the exhibit. The museum was losing origin of these figures is uncertain.” critical support. Whatever his motivation was, Harwit On Jan. 30, the Smithsonian canceled must have realized that he was advancing the exhibition. Heyman said the failed a major—and disputed—theme of the program would be replaced with “a Revisionist dogma. much simpler one, essentially a display, The American Legion issued a posi- allowing the Enola Gay and its crew to speak for themselves. Along with the terly in 1997. “It seemed that hardly plane would be a video about the crew. any of the journalists had read the It is particularly important in this com- 500-page exhibition script that the mu- memorative year that veterans and other seum had completed in January 1994. 21 Americans have the opportunity to see They preferred instead to take their the restored portion of the fuselage of cue from Air Force Association press the Enola Gay.”75 releases.”78 Harwit had one more surprise left. In In Hiroshima in America (1995), Rob- April, the Smithsonian abruptly can- ert Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell claimed 75 Statement by Heyman, Jan. 30, celed a reception—planned by Harwit that “reporters rarely took the trouble 1995. without notifying Smithsonian lead- to examine one of the widely available 76 Rowan Scarborough, “Enola Gay Reception Canceled; Fete Was to ers—to honor the curators of the origi- scripts to determine if the veterans com- Honor Curators of Failed Exhibit,” nal, failed exhibition. Heyman learned plaints were valid. Instead, they accepted Washington Times, April 7, 1995. about the event, scheduled for April 18, at face value the Air Force Association’s 77 Harwit, An Exhibit Denied, p. 442. 79 when the Washington Times called for interpretation.” 78 Harwit, “How Lobbying Changed comment.76 The source from which the script was the History of the Enola Gay,” Japan Quarterly, Asahi Shimbun, July- Time had finally run out for Harwit. “widely available,” of course, was the September 1997. Harwit wrote in his book that on Air Force Association, which distributed 79 Robert Jay Lifton and Greg Thursday, April 20, “I was asked to hundreds of copies, many of them to Mitchell. Hiroshima in America: Fifty come to Newman’s office. When I ar- reporters, whose follow-up questions Years of Denial. Grosset/Putnam, rived, she and [Acting Provost Robert] indicated they had, indeed, read the 1995, p. 285-287. 80 Edward Linenthal, “Anatomy of Hoffmann were already there. New- scripts they received. The people whose a Controversy,” in Linenthal and man began, saying she was sorry it had comments most often indicated they had Engelhardt. History Wars, 1996, come to this: The secretary wanted not read the script were activists and p. 48. my resignation by next Monday or at academics, who had also gotten their the latest Tuesday—giving me four copies from AFA. days to resign. I mentioned that I was Edward T. Linenthal—professor of scheduled to leave town the next hour religious studies at the University of and would not be back until Saturday. Wisconsin and a member of Harwit’s That made it a little tight. Newman advisory panel—said that “after AFA explained Heyman was in a hurry. ... put its clout behind a campaign against By the afternoon of Monday, May 1, the the exhibit, with the exception of Castle [the Smithsonian headquarters] several sympathetic editorials in the and I had agreed that I would officially New York Times, influential editorial resign the next day.”77 comment almost uniformly attacked Martin Harwit resigned on May 2. The the museum.”80 fact that he had been fired would not be Linenthal pursued the same notion disclosed until the publication of his book as Lifton and Mitchell: “Clearly few of the following year. those writing about the exhibit had read the first script in its entirety, not to The News Media mention the following drafts.” Linenthal Between March 1994 and August 1995, was right about one thing: Reporters we collected 602 news clippings. We were and editorial writers had not read “the limited in capability to keep track of radio following drafts” of the script. The mu- and television reports, but broadcast cov- seum would not release copies to the erage was extensive. press, and the copyright prohibitions News reports were generally deep and it had stuck on them were intended to balanced, but the museum did not fare keep us from distributing copies. well in the commentaries. Many, if not Among those we allegedly bamboozled most, of the columns and editorials inter- was the Washington Post, whose sympa- preted the situation much the same way thies seldom lay on the conservative side that we did. This was intolerable to the of an issue. Two editorials were especially curators and their supporters, who sought remarkable. to explain it away with a “Bamboozled In January 1995, the Post said that Media” theory. early drafts of the script had been “The media largely spoke with one “incredibly propagandistic and intellec- voice,” Harwit wrote in Japan Quar- tually shabby” and “had a tendentiously 22 antinuclear and anti-American tone.” strove to censor a Smithsonian exhibit The museum “repeatedly worsened” the about Hiroshima. Their intolerant zeal controversy “by misplaced condescen- finds its match at the opposite end sion and refusal to see the criticisms of of the political pole. It turns history bias as anything but the carping of the and reality upside down to imply that 81 81 “The Enola Gay Explosion,” insufficiently sophisticated.” Hiroshima is America’s Auschwitz, that Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1995. In February, another Post editorial Harry Truman was somehow a war 82 “The Smithsonian Changes said, “It is important to be clear about criminal because he grasped eagerly at Course,” Washington Post, Feb. 1, 1995. what happened at the Smithsonian. It a wonder weapon to end a war that the is not, as some have it, that benighted Axis powers had begun. One can imag- 83 “The Smithsonian and the Bomb,” New York Times, Sept. 5, 1994. advocates of a special-interest or right- ine the clamor for his political skin if 84 “Hijacking History,” New York wing point of view brought political tens of thousands of Allied soldiers had Times, Jan. 30, 1995. power to bear to crush and distort the died, in battle or in Japanese camps, 85 “Hiroshima, 50 Years Later,” New historical truth. Quite the contrary. Nar- because the bomb was never used, or York Times, Aug. 6, 1995. row-minded representatives of a special- used too late.”85 86 Ken Ringle, “History Through a interest and Revisionist point of view The Revisionists got their big mo- Mushroom Cloud,” Washington Post, July 27, 1995. attempted to use their inside track to ment on prime-time television July 27 appropriate and hollow out a historical with a Peter Jennings ABC special, “Hi- 87 Laurence Jarvik, “Vets, Historians Rip ABC Atomic Report,” Washington event that large numbers of Americans roshima: Why the Bomb Was Dropped.” Times, July 29, 1995. alive at that time and engaged in the As the Washington Post review said, 88 Laura C. Yamhure, executive war had witnessed and understood in a Jennings was led along by “a largely director, Historians’ Committee for very different—and authentic—way.”82 stacked deck of Revisionist histori- Open Debate on Hiroshima, “Dear Colleague” form letter, March 21, Among major newspapers and ans” to the assessment of President 1995. magazines, the bastion of support for Harry Truman “as an intellectual dwarf, the curators was the New York Times. propelled by ambitious militarists and “The Smithsonian would probably have politicians to a nuclear slaughter of the worked its way to a more balanced exhi- innocents.”86 bition without pressure from Congress,” Among other things, Jennings said, “It is the Times said in a Sept. 5, 1994, edito- unfortunate, we think, that some veterans rial. “In fact, months before Congress organizations and some politicians felt the intervened, Mr. Harwit wrote to his need to bully our most important national curators telling them that the exhibition museum so the whole story of Hiroshima was one-sided. That is how the process is not represented here.” ought to work: Curators propose, review One of the few non-Revisionists inter- committees advise, the exhibition gradu- viewed for the Jennings special was Rob- ally comes into focus. That process was ert James Maddox, professor of American short-circuited by the protests, but it is history at Pennsylvania State University. not too late to get it back on track.”83 He said ABC misrepresented his views The editorial writer obviously did not and ignored information he supplied. He check out the story behind Harwit’s called the show “the worst piece of gar- memo to the curators and was a bit be- bage I’ve seen.”87 hind on how the process really worked. “The Smithsonian effort, while not The Controversy Lingers On without its own missteps, is in danger of In March 1995, six weeks before Martin being hijacked by a band of Congress- Harwit was fired, the activist “historians men and veterans outraged that the and scholars” reconstituted themselves as exhibit does not tell just their side of the the “Historians’ Committee for Open De- story,” said another Times editorial June bate on Hiroshima.” The co-chairmen were 30, 1995.”84 Martin J. Sherwin and Kai Bird.88 By Aug. 6, 1995, the 50th anni- Sherwin was a professor of history at versary of Hiroshima mission, Times Dartmouth and Tufts. In 1994, in his ca- editorial writers were casting their pacity as an advisor to the Air and Space disapproval in both directions: “At Museum on the Enola Gay exhibit, one extreme are veterans groups that Sherwin complained that the crew had shown “no remorse” for the mission. Now others. Among the most strident in 23 he thundered that “the assault on the denouncing AFA and defending the cura- Enola Gay exhibit ... was orchestrated by tors was Philip Nobile, who billed his John Correll, editor in chief of Air Force book, Judgment at the Smithsonian,92 as Magazine. ... The Air Force Association’s containing the “uncensored script of the agenda, in my view, was not simply to Smithsonian’s 50th anniversary exhibit 89 Charles J. Lewis, “Feud Continues to Rage on ‘Enola Gay’ Exhibit,” Albany, tweak an exhibit into getting the story of the Enola Gay.” The press release N.Y. Times Union, June 27, 1995. right. It was a blatant and ultimately suc- promoting this book depicted Nobile as 90 Kai Bird, “The Curators Cave In,” cessful attempt at getting Martin Harwit blowing the lid off a cover-up after he New York Times, Oct. 9, 1994. fired and regain [sic] control of Air and “obtained a rare copy of the 300-page 91 Eugene Meyer, “2 Exhibits to Mark Space for Air Force-friendly, noncritical document.” A-Bombings,” Washington Post, 89 June 21, 1995; Phillip P. Pan, “AU mis-exhibits.” As Nobile admitted in the “acknowl- Offers a View of A-Bombs’ Horrors,” Bird was a journalist turned historian edgments” section of his book, he got his Washington Post, July 9, 1995; and author. In one of his op-ed pieces, “rare copy” of the script from AFA, the Stephen Aubin and John Correll, AFA, visit to American University exhibition, Bird denounced the “humiliating spec- same as everybody else. What he did not July 21, 1995. tacle” of “scholars being forced to recant say was that the document he obtained 92 Philip Nobile, ed. Judgment at the 90 the truth.” from AFA was 559 pages, not 300. He had Smithsonian. Marlowe & Co., 1995. In its long list of study and resource reproduced the text of the script but ig- 93 Colman McCarthy, “Hiroshima materials, the Committee for Open De- nored the visual content, on which much Weighs Heavily on the Future,” bate did not mention the AFA reports and of the criticism had focused. (As AFA’s Au- Washington Post, July 4, 1995. content analyses that had been central bin said, ignoring the graphic parts of an 94 Gar Alperovitz, “Beyond the Smithsonian Flap: Historians’ New to the controversy. (By contrast, the col- exhibition that was primarily visual was Consensus,” Washington Post, Oct. lections of documents disseminated by like watching television without looking 16, 1994, and “Enola Gay: A New Consensus ... ,” Washington Post, AFA routinely included statements and at the picture.) Feb. 4, 1995. In Atomic Diplomacy: materials from the Committee for Open Nobile’s book hit a low point with its Hiroshima and Potsdam, The Debate.) “mock war crimes trial of Harry Truman.” Use of the Atomic Bomb and the American Confrontation With Soviet Some of the artifacts originally planned According to the press release, “Nobile’s Power (Simon and Schuster, 1965), for the “Crossroads” exhibition at Air and fictional cross-examination of Truman Alperovitz argued that Truman Space were shown at American University leaves little doubt about the defendant’s used the atomic bomb primarily to intimidate the Soviet Union with a in Washington, D.C., July 8-28, 1995, as guilt.” demonstration of American power. part of a program, “Constructing a Peace- Colman McCarthy, columnist for the ful World: Beyond Hiroshima and Naga- Washington Post, included Judgment saki.”91 at the Smithsonian on a short list of On display were 27 artifacts from the “books of reliable scholarship and Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. They balanced analysis” to counteract the included a schoolchild’s lunch box with spin he attributed to “the easily peeved charred remains of rice, barley, soy beans, military lobby.”93 and strips of radish. The program ran for Gar Alperovitz, a leading proponent 18 days and drew just over 1,000 visitors. of Revisionist theory about Truman The academic director of the program and the atomic bomb, argued that a was Peter J. Kuznick, associate professor “new consensus” had developed among of history at American University, and one historians and that it supported the cu- of the 48 signatories to the “historians and rators and the Revisionists.”94 However, scholars” letter to Heyman the previous Alperovitz was stretching with his claim year. In 2003, he would re-emerge in a of consensus. related role. In 1994, for example, a survey by the The Revisionists had not fared well in Organization of American Historians news media coverage of the controversy, asked historians to rank various events as but they found a more advantageous “bright spots” and “dark spots” in Ameri- venue in book publishing, where the influ- can history. World War II ranked third ence of scholars and academicians was from the top among 46 bright spots. The strong and in which they got to write the Atomic Bomb and Hiroshima tied (with material themselves, their way. the Mexican War) for 23rd place on the Some of the books were worse than list of dark spots, being considered less dark than Watergate, the Great Depres- a straightforward historical exhibition sion, sexism, the Cold War, and the 1980s on the Enola Gay and its mission. The in general.95 centerpiece was the forward fuselage 24 Furthermore, numerous books, articles, of the airplane, a 53-foot section and and statements from historians that just over half the total length, up on appeared during the controversy ran con- the nose wheel. Also on display were trary to the “new consensus” that Alpero- a propeller, the tail, and two of the vitz imagined.96 engines. 95 “Statistical Summary of Survey Part of the wall text in the exhibition Results,” survey, “What Do American

Historians Think?” Journal of Four Million Visitors gallery said that “the use of the [atomic] American History, December 1994, For the most part, Secretary Heyman bombs led to the immediate surrender pp. 1211 and 1212. steered clear of ideology, concentrating of Japan and made unnecessary the 96 See, e.g. Stanley Weintraub, The instead on practical measures to extricate planned invasion of the Japanese home Last Great War, Dutton, 1995; Robert James Maddox, Weapons for Victory, the Smithsonian from its troubles. islands. Such an invasion, especially if University of Missouri Press, 1995; Heyman did, however, contribute an undertaken for both main islands, would Robert P. Newman, Truman and the Hiroshima Cult, Michigan State enduring misperception to the legend of have led to very heavy casualties among University Press, 1995; Wilcomb E. the lost exhibit. Testifying to the Senate American and Allied troops and Japanese Washburn, “The Smithsonian and Rules Committee in May 1995, he said, civilians and military. It was thought the Enola Gay,” The National Interest, summer 1995; Stephen E. Ambrose, “The fundamental flaw, in my view, lay in highly unlikely that Japan, while in a very “The Bomb: It Was Death or More the concept of the exhibition itself. The weakened military condition, would have Death,” New York Times, Oct. 11, basic error was attempting to couple an surrendered unconditionally without 1994. historical dialogue centering on the use such an invasion.” 97 I. Michael Heyman, transcript of Senate Rules Committee hearings, of atomic weapons with the 50th com- At a press conference opening the May 11 and 18, 1995, p. 68. Heyman memoration of the end of the war.”97 new exhibition, Heyman was asked why repeated this assessment in “Enola The problem was never that history he had given in to veterans and Con- Gay—Media Preview, Opening Statement of the Smithsonian and commemoration would not mix. gress. He said that objections had not Secretary,” June 27, 1995. The problem was distorted history. But come only from “a handful of people or 98 “Presenting the Enola Gay,” Air Heyman had found a convenient rationale simply a handful of legislators,” He had Force Magazine, August 1995. that gave him quick separation from the received 30,000 to 40,000 letters from failed exhibit, and he repeated it often. It citizens.98 has since become an article of faith for Comment cards filled out by exhi- activist scholars that the exhibition was bition visitors were overwhelmingly canceled only because its critics could favorable. The only disruption came on not tolerate historical analysis. July 2, when three anti-nuclear protest- In June 1995, the museum opened ers closed down the exhibition for 90

After “The Last Act.”

For the 1995-98 exhibit, NASM photo by Carolyn Russo NASM displayed the Enola Gay’s distinctive tail, whose aluminum skin had been buffed and polished to its original shine. The trademark “R” in a circle had been restored. NASM photo by Carolyn Russo

25

Luster Restored. With Harwit gone, the museum displayed the Enola Gay’s forward fuselage, a propeller, and other components in a depoliticized exhibit. It drew four million visitors, the most for minutes by pouring a pint of human Boeing B-29 Superfortress any special exhibition. blood and two bags of ashes on the aircraft.99 Enola Gay “Boeing’s B-29 Superfortress was the most Before the exhibition closed in May sophisticated propeller-driven bomber of 1998 after a three-year run, it had drawn World War II and the first bomber to house its almost four million visitors, making it crew in pressurized compartments. Although by far the most popular special exhibi- designed to fight in the European theater, tion in the history of the Air and Space the B-29 found its niche on the other side of the globe. In the Pacific, B-29s delivered Museum. a variety of aerial weapons: conventional Heyman fiddled with the idea of hiring bombs, incendiary bombs, mines, and two a British aviation expert to replace Harwit, nuclear weapons. On Aug. 6, 1945, this but he was overruled by the Smithsonian Martin-built B-29-45-MO dropped the first 100 atomic weapon used in combat on Hiro- regents. shima, Japan. Three days later, Bockscar Finally, a distinguished naval airman, (on display at the US Air Force Museum near retired Vice Adm. Donald D. Engen Dayton, Ohio) delivered a second atomic was chosen to head the Air and Space bomb on Nagasaki, Japan. Enola Gay flew Museum. His first act was to reappoint as the advance weather reconnaissance aircraft that day. A third B-29, The Great 99 Jim Keary, “Enola Gay Painted Donald S. Lopez as deputy director, Artiste, flew as an observation aircraft on With Blood,” Washington Times, July a position he had held from 1983 to both missions.” 3, 1995. 1990, before being moved out of the 100 Rowan Scarborough, “Foreigner Won’t Fly in Air and Space Post,” way by Martin Harwit. Engen and Lopez Well before the Udvar–Hazy Center Washington Times, May 30, 1996. took the museum back to its charter to opened, the Revisionists began tuning 101 Committee for a National collect, preserve, and display historic up. On Oct. 23, 2003, the Committee Discussion of Nuclear History and aircraft and spacecraft. for a National Discussion of Nuclear Current Policy at www.enola-gay.org. Engen was killed in a glider accident History and Current Policy—“a commit- 102 “AU Faculty Spotlight: Peter in 1999, but his successor, retired tee of scholars, veterans, clergy, activists, Kuznick,” American University, 2003: Professor Peter Kuznick teaches “one Marine Corps Gen. John R. Dailey, students, and other interested individu- of the most popular classes at AU,” appointed in January 2000, was of the als”101—formed to challenge the Udvar– “Oliver Stone’s America,” which uses films by Oliver Stone to “examine same mold. The Revisionist historians Hazy exhibit. recent American history. no longer held sway at Air and Space. The signatures on the committee’s When the museum opened its sprawl- petition were familiar from the 1994 ing Udvar–Hazy annex at Dulles Airport protest. The organizer this time was in December 2003, the airplane in center Peter Kuznick, who had been director of position in the aviation hangar was the the American University exhibit of the Enola Gay, completely restored and Hiroshima artifacts in 1995. Among those fully assembled for the first time since signing the petition: Daniel Ellsberg, 1960. Like other aircraft at Udvar–Hazy, Noam Chomsky, Oliver Stone,102 and lead- the Enola Gay was shown with a basic ing lights of the Revisionist movement. descriptive label. It said: To the Revisionists, it was intoler- able that the Enola Gay was displayed showed up. One of them threw a bottle without an antinuclear message at- of red paint at the Enola Gay. It made 26 tached. “You wouldn’t display a slave a minor dent on the side of the aircraft, ship solely as a model of technologi- bounced off, and broke on the floor. The cal advancement,” said David Nasaw, a bottle thrower was arrested and the cultural historian at the City University rest of the demonstrators were escorted of New York.103 out, chanting and singing “Down by the 103 Elizabeth Olson, “Criticism Meets The Japanese connection was back Riverside.” New Exhibit of Plane That Carried the A-Bomb,” New York Times, Nov. as well. In a letter to museum director For the Revisionists and for many of 2, 2003. Dailey, the mayor of Hiroshima, Tada- the activists, the concerns have never 104 Tadatoshi Akiba, mayor of toshi Akiba, said, “I am writing today been principally about World War II Hiroshima, letter to John R. Dailey, to request that you include with the but rather about the nuclear politics of director of National Air and Space Museum, Oct. 16, 2003. exhibition a description of the damage today: “Moral attacks on the Hiroshima inflicted by the bomb the Enola Gay decision, however, seem to have less to 105 “Statement on Exhibition of the B- 29 Superfortress Enola Gay,” National dropped and the intense desire of the do with the Pacific war than with the Air and Space Museum, Nov. 7, 2003. people of Hiroshima for the abolition of dawn of the nuclear age,” historian Jef- 106 Jeffery Roberts, “Peering Through nuclear weapons and a world genuine fery Roberts, of Tennessee Technological Different Bombsights: Military peace. As you know, a special exhibition University, wrote in 1998.106“For many Historians, Diplomatic Historians, and the Decision to Drop the Atomic was planned by your institution in 1995 people, to oppose the bombing of Hiro- Bomb,” Airpower Journal, spring that would have been a sincere re-ex- shima and Nagasaki is to oppose nuclear 1998. amination of the meaning of the atomic weapons generally, and the possibility of 107 Peter Kuznick in “Controversial bombing. ... This balanced exhibition was a third world war especially.” ‘Enola Gay’ Exhibit: Interviews Available,” news release, Institute for stopped by a Congressional resolution at That was reflected in the comments of Public Accuracy, Dec. 10, 2003. the insistence of veterans groups deter- Kuznick, the protest committee leader. mined to protect their cherished belief “Our greatest concern is that the disturb- that the atomic bombings were justified ing issues raised by the atomic bomb- and indispensable.”104 ings in 1945 will not be addressed in The museum acknowledged that it had the planned exhibit and that President received and reviewed the committee’s Truman’s use of atomic weapons will le- petition but did not plan to change the gitimize the Bush administration’s current exhibit.105 effort to lower the threshold for future Peace groups allied with the Commit- use of nuclear weapons,” he said.107 tee for a National Discussion organized a demonstration for opening day at the Forces of Change Udvar-Hazy Center. About 75 protesters Over the years, myths about the con-

New Home. Final assembly of the Enola Gay proceeded apace at NASM’s new Udvar– Hazy Center in Virginia. NASM photo by Eric Long To the Revisionists, it was intolerable that the Enola Gay was displayed without an antinuclear message attached. Photo by Paul Kennedy

27

Mission Accomplished. the famous B-29 bomber, finally exhibited with respect, reposes in the Udvar–Hazy Center, where it dwarfs smaller aircraft nearby. troversy have taken root. One of them is for AFA, only three or four of us were that the museum was overwhelmed by significantly engaged, and part time at impossible odds. that. “You have no idea of the forces op- Many organizations were involved, posing this exhibit, not in your wildest but in the Revisionist books and journal dreams—jobs are at stake, the Smith- articles Air Force Magazine and AFA have sonian is at stake,” curator Crouch told become the demons of record. There is the peace group leader, Father John no particular reason for us to object to Dear.108 the blame (or credit), it being a good “The Air Force Association must have thing that the political plans for exhibi- had an incredibly well-oiled public rela- tion of the Enola Gay were stopped, but tions machine,” Harwit said. “To that was in truth, the people who brought down added the American Legion. We were kind the exhibit and Martin Harwit were the of outgunned.”109 curators and Martin Harwit. In another instance, Harwit said, “De- Our contribution was to shine a light feat of a museum with a total of 280, by on what the museum was doing, and pub- veterans’ organizations whose summed lic outrage did the rest. ■ membership stands at six million strong is not shameful. I like to believe we fought valiantly, but were badly out- 110 gunned.” 108 Philip Nobile, Judgment at the The “impossible odds” theory was more Smithsonian. Marlowe & Co., 1995. comforting to the curators than the actual 109 Thomas Allen and Norman explanation. They could not bear the Polmar, “Blown Away,” thought that the public was intelligent Washingtonian, August 1995. 110 Jacqueline Trescott, “Ground Zero enough to see the truth. at Air and Space: Former Director The curators were defeated principally Gives His Side of the Enola Gay by their own scripts, which revealed Controversy,” Washington Post, Oct. exactly what they were planning to do. 13, 1996. They said one thing in public and a differ- ent thing in private. Incredibly, they were prone to putting their real views into papers, which were duly obtained and circulated by AFA. The vast alliance, six million strong, was mostly in the minds of the curators. The veterans groups cooperated, but they were not coordinated. We shared information and kept in touch, but there was no joint strategy, few meetings, and nobody telling anybody what to do. As Notes on Key Sources and References

Air Force Association Enola Gay Archive National Air and Space Museum, three (www.afa.org/media/enolagay). concept papers, five script drafts, and a Collects the original materials that “Section 000” addition: brought the exhibition plans to public “Hiroshima and Nagasaki: A Fiftieth attention in 1994, as well as reports and Anniversary Exhibit at the National Air documents that were at the center of the 28 and Space Museum,”exhibition proposal, controversy that ensued. 1993 (previous drafts, February 1991 and Air Force Magazine articles, editorials, December 1992). and news items. “Fifty Years On,” exhibition concept Air Force Association reports and paper, June 10, 1993. content analyses of exhibition scripts. “The Crossroads: The End of World (Some of these reports provide additional War II, the Atomic Bomb, and the Onset of bibliography and documentation.) the Cold War,” exhibition plan, July 1993. Chronology of the controversy. “The Crossroads: The End of World Documents from 1993 and 1994, War II, the Atomic Bomb, and the Origins including internal the museum’s three of the Cold War,” (exhibition script, draft concept papers that preceded the first No. 1), Jan. 12, 1994. full script. “The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II” (exhibition script, Harwit, Martin O. draft No. 2), May 31, 1994. An Exhibit Denied: Lobbying the History of “The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb the Enola Gay. Copernicus, 1996. and the End of World War II,” (exhibition The museum director’s version of the script, draft No. 3), Aug. 31, 1994. story, almost 500 pages long. This is the only account from the museum’s side “The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb of the controversy written by an actual and the End of World War II,” (exhibition major participant. Numerous documents script, draft No. 4), Oct. 3, 1994 are quoted at length. Especially valuable “The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb if studied alongside material from the AFA and the End of World War II,” (exhibition archive. script, draft No. 5), Oct. 26, 1994. Lehigh University Enola Gay Controversy “The War in the Pacific” (exhibition Web Site: www.lehigh.edu/EnolaGay. script, section 000 add–on), Dec. 6, 1994. Extraordinarily comprehensive bibliogra- phy, much of it interactive, on the contro- versy, chronologically arranged. Includes material from both sides and makes an effort to be non-partisan. The Author John T. Correll, was editor in chief of the Air Force Association’s monthly journal, Air Force Magazine, for 18 years. In that capacity, he wrote “War Stories at Air and Space—the 1994 article that first brought the Smithsonian’s plans for the Enola Gay to public attention—as well as subse- quent reports that figured prominently in the nationwide controversy that ensued.

A shorter version of this report, “Revision- ism Gone Wrong,” appears in Air Force Magazine, April 2004.