The Atomic Cover Up

Ethan Gish

AHIS 356

Dr. Lamay

11/24/24

In the documentary, “Atomic Cover-up,” Lt. McGovern and Lt. Sussan recount their experiences in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as cameramen documenting the carnage left behind by the atomic bombs. They capture footage of the two annihilated cities as well as survivors of the blasts, many of whom were left with horrific injuries. To the dismay of the lieutenants, their footage would be classified for decades, going unviewed by American audiences until 1970 when some of it was shown on public television in a documentary. The decision by the U.S. government to cover up the catastrophic damage the bombs dealt to Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and its residents, is a consequential one that may have permanently altered Americans' views on the use of atomic weapons as well as war. Thus, understanding why the government acted the way it did and the implications of such a decision, is incredibly important.

In the wake of their victory over the Axis powers, America stood at the top of the global order. Not only was the U.S. on the winning side of a war against possibly the most evil and vile regime to ever exist, but we faced relatively few losses compared to other nations while becoming the first country in the world to use an atomic weapon. Given the incredible position the U.S. was in to be able to influence and shape the world as it saw fit, it is unsurprising that America would want to censor the utter destruction it had caused in Japan. The bombs almost completely leveled Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which Americans were made aware of with grainy black-and-white images of the aftermath. But the footage that McGovern and Sussan took captured far more. It captured the humanity of the civilians who fell victim to the bombs. It captured destroyed hospitals and schools, showing massive piles of human bones from children and adults. It captured the terrible injuries that civilians were left with. Notably, that of a 16-year-old boy whose back was bare with raw skin, being treated with a bath of penicillin. The boy was in so much pain he asked the doctors to simply let him die. In one hospital, you could still see huge splatters of blood left on the walls and ceilings. McGovern was able to capture a scene of a group of children, singing happily as they walked along the road eating apples. The fact that they could still find happiness in the wake of such a terrible event is incredible. These moments captured in color film, according to Sussan, made “the best argument for peace the world had ever seen.” This is the problem the U.S. government had with the footage. The U.S. was in the position it was in as a result of fighting a “just” war against an evil dictator. In capturing the victims of the atomic bombs and showing their humanity, the image of a moral U.S. is tainted. If Americans were allowed to see this film at the time and sympathize with Japanese civilians who lived their own lives, had friends, family, children, and aspirations just as they did, it certainly could have harmed the image and reputation of post-WW2 America. This is why for so long McGovern and Sussan failed at getting their film published to the masses.

The impacts of America’s decision to censor the footage captured in Hiroshima and Nagasaki are touched upon at the end of the documentary. It mentions the fact that most U.S. officials and media commentators still endorse the use of nukes against Japan during WW2. It also highlights surveys that show most Americans support using nuclear weapons today in a “first strike” if an enemy were to threaten us, and that a third of Americans support using a nuke on North Korea. By 2020, the U.S. had over 5.500 nuclear warheads and to this day it retains the same “first-strike” nuclear policy it adopted in 1945, giving the president the power to launch nuclear weapons in response to any serious threat or non-nuclear attack. It is quite possible that had the footage been released shortly after the war, public opinion may have swayed so strongly against the idea of using nukes in the future that the government could have been pressured to denuclearize itself or at least limit the further development of such weapons. It is certainly arguable whether or not this scenario would have been preferable. On one hand, a world with less or even no nuclear weapons sounds good for humanity as a whole, considering how catastrophic a nuclear war would be. One might even think the deployment of nukes in Japan was wholly unacceptable. On the other hand, one could argue that the U.S. having nuclear superiority is good for global peace. Germany and the USSR were actively trying to develop a nuclear weapon during WW2. In a world where the Soviet Union/Russia, for example, becomes the first nation to drop a nuke, international relations completely change for the worse. All of a sudden the most powerful country in the world becomes one that does not share the same democratic values as the West. How does a conflict like the current Russia-Ukraine war look if the U.S. is not the only nation to ever drop a nuke? Would the West be as willing to provide military aid to Ukraine if it were against the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons? In comparison to our reality where Russia frequently bluffs about its willingness to use nukes in response to Western “aggression,” it’s possible that the West would take these kinds of threats more seriously, and try to avoid poking the bear. If the U.S. had denuclearized after the war and tried to convince the rest of the world not to pursue nuclear power, the rest of the Western world might have obliged, but the Soviet Union certainly would not and neither would China. This is a power dynamic that is certainly not preferable to our current situation.

Ultimately, the decision of the U.S. to censor footage taken in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a big one with major implications. I do not believe that had the film been released, America could have been pressured into denuclearizing itself, but I wouldn’t say it’s impossible. Given its improbability, however, the footage captured by Lt. McGovern and Lt. Sussan should have absolutely been released as soon as possible to give the world a more accurate picture of what war looks like. Maybe America’s reputation would have taken a hit, but maybe the world would have come to a collective understanding that the costs of war are not worth it. Maybe public attitudes regarding war and the use of nuclear weapons would be different today if the dominant narrative about America’s use of nukes in Japan had not prevailed for so long. Even by 1995, decades after the war, President Clinton had made the statement that the United States “owed no apology” to Japan for dropping the nukes (Reuters). History is important because we can learn from it, but unfortunately, America’s actions after the war may have diminished our ability to do that.

Works Cited

Reuters. “No Apology for Hiroshima (Published 1995).” The New York Times, The New York Times, 8 Apr. 1995, www.nytimes.com/1995/04/08/us/no-apology-for-hiroshima.html.