August 17, 1994 MEMO FOR THE RECORD:
Meeting on Enola Gay Exhibit
FROM: John T.
Correll
Gen. Thomas S. Moorman, Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force, hosted a
90-minute meeting in his office yesterday to discuss the
exhibit, “The Last Act: the Atomic Bomb and the End of
World War II,” planned by the National Air and Space
Museum. The Museum director, Dr. Martin Harwit, was
there as were historians for the Air Force, Army, Navy,
and Marine Corps. Steve Aubin and I attended for the Air
Force Association.
The big news,
revealed by Dr. Harwit, is that the museum now plans to
revise the exhibit script substantially. This was a
surprise, since on June 21, the museum had declared the
previous script to be final, “minor wording changes
aside.”) Dr. Harwit said that those attending
yesterday’s meeting will receive review copies of the
new script by September 1. Among the changes
planned:
A new section at the beginning of the
exhibition to provide historical content for the war in
the Pacific. Material on the “Greater East Asia
Co-Prosperity Sphere” in the 1930s, President
Roosevelt’s “Day of Infamy” speech material on Tojo,
etc. Details on this “context” section however, will not
be ready in time for the September 1 script revision.
Speculation about US motives will be
removed. This will include such material as the series
of “Historical Controversies,” which the Air Force
Association (among others) had characterized as
anti-American.
The exhibit will strongly affirm that the
United States employed the atomic bomb to shorten the
war and save lives. This is an important change, but we
have a concern here. The exhibition curator, Dr. Michael
Neufeld, does not personally accept this rationale for
the use of the bomb. Can the exhibit credibly affirm a
key point if the curator doesn’t believe it? (A related
problem, as Air Force Historian Dick Hallion said
yesterday, is that the other curator – Dr. Tom Crouch –
is on record disagreeing with the objective of the
exhibit as stated by Dr. Harwit in the August/September
issue of the museum’s Air and Space Magazine.)
The curator’s have “taken out adjectives
and neutralized language” as well as removing “a number
of redundant graphic images” in areas where exception
has been taken.
Theatrical lighting effects have been
removed from the “Ground Zero: Hiroshima and Nagasaki”
section of the exhibit. The meeting was
marked by a number of hostile exchanges between Dr.
Harwit and me. He said AFA does not believe the museum
will make changes unless forced to do so by external
pressure. With that, I agreed completely. I pointed out
that on June 21, the museum had declared the exhibit
plan final and disparaged as irresponsible AFA’s
complaint that it lacked balance, context, and fairness.
Now, a month later, the museum has reversed its
direction and says it agrees that major changes are
needed for balance, context and fairness. What caused
the museum to change its mind? The obvious answer is
that over the past month, AFA’s public criticism
generated more public opinion pressure than the museum
was able to withstand.
Dr. Harwit and I
differed on the right of the public to see the museum’s
emerging exhibit plan. He believes that only a handful
of people should have access to the plan, and that any
comments they have should be conveyed privately to the
museum staff. Our position – which I restated – is that
this is a controversial program, to be held in a public
museum and funded by public money, and that the public
has a right to know what’s going on and to comment on
it. Dr. Harwit finds it “inappropriate” that he has
received thousands of strongly worded letters objecting
to his plan. Both Herman Wolk (Center for Air Force
History) and I made the point that this is the way
things work in a free society and there’s nothing
“inappropriate about it.
(In a similar
exchange, Dr. Harwit said that AFA has been very
effective in mobilizing public opinion, but that affairs
are reaching the point where “you won’t be able to
control it.” I told Dr. Harwit emphatically that we had
no thought of trying to “control” public opinion. If a
manipulation model exists here, it’s in his mind, not
ours.)
We will have to wait
and see, obviously, what this new script revision
brings. Further modifications – especially in areas that
we had identified as problems but where the museum was
dug in before – will be a welcome improvement. Even so –
we’re left with several questions:
Is this a genuine, good-faith action or a
ploy to buy time? Frequently in the past, the museum’s
standard reaction to criticism has been to claim that
new suggestions are under review and will be reflected
later in a modified product. In the meantime, trust us.
When the immediate uproar subsides, the curators revert
to their original course. That may not be the case here,
but we should be watchful and wary.
Assuming the effort is genuine, is it
possible for marginal revision to transform this into an
honest exhibition?
How can curators do justice to an exhibit
that – if Dr. Harwit’s latest assurances are to be
believed – are fundamentally at odds with their personal
beliefs?
John Correll (signature)
Return to the Chronology of Controversy
