Wednesday, June 15, 2016

For the People: Visualizing Gettysburg


Sunset at the Angle by Buddy Secor.
 
What new can be said about Gettysburg? One of the most studied military confrontations in human history, the three day struggle and subsequent address by Abraham Lincoln have come to represent epochal transitions of the national ideal. But the story does not end in 1863. This is the story my new book, Images of Modern America: Gettysburg National Military Park, seeks to delve into. Through this visual record, I hope to convey the ongoing history of the battlefield where this momentous clash of the Civil War took place. The book devotes particular attention to the profound role of the National Park Service and its stewardship of the landmark since the 1950s. With this book’s release coinciding with the centennial of the National Park Service, now is a timely moment to reflect upon the people, strategies, and dramatic changes that continue to mold our perceptions of a turning point in history.

My good friend and former boss, Christopher Gwinn, the Supervisory Park Ranger at the battlefield, was good enough to pen an insightful and humbling introduction to my book--which I share below:


"On July 5, 1863, a team of photographers arrived on the still-smoldering battlefield at Gettysburg. They brought with them the innovative tools of their trade—transported in a mobile dark room for the development of fragile glass plate negatives. The three men, Alexander Gardner, Timothy O’Sullivan, and James F. Gibson, began the laborious and time consuming process of capturing what they saw—images eventually to be reproduced, distributed, and sold. Altogether they recorded over fifty unique negatives that conveyed the most immediate and visceral testimony pertaining to the Battle of Gettysburg.

By the time Gardner and company arrived, two days had passed since the battle’s conclusion. The once-thriving town and surrounding countryside were scarred by the unmistakable signs of slaughter, chaos, and destruction. Formerly peaceful households were riddled with shot and shell while previously bucolic farms were ruined by the hard hand of war. The wounded and mangled spewed forth from every church, shack, and barn as burial parties embarked upon the task of digging shallow graves. As Gettysburg resident J. Howard Wert recalled, “No pen can paint the awful picture of desolation, devastation, and death that was presented here to the shuddering beholders….It was a hideous and revolting sight.”

Over the ensuing years, Gettysburg struggled to overcome the carnage and devastation inflicted in 1863. In many respects the community never recovered. The photographic record of the enterprising artists of the time permits us to partly comprehend the challenges of soldiers and civilians. These photographs, and others taken over the following 150 years, allow us to describe the indescribable and decipher the indecipherable. The images are simultaneously a bi-product of creative expression and invaluable tools of historical understanding.

Casting light on events and lives of the past, photos allow us to walk in the theoretical footsteps of our predecessors. Photographs capture moments beautiful and transcendent as well as episodes dark and painful. Visual records spare these episodes from the inevitable evaporation that befalls so many historical events through the passing of time.

Much of the 1863 battlefield is today preserved within the nearly 7,000 acres of Gettysburg National Military Park. Contemporary visitors will find little outward vestige of the true horrors inflicted by the armies during the American Civil War. Rather, they encounter a well-maintained park, a quaint downtown, and a hauntingly serene pastoral landscape. Above all else, the battlefield remains a place of pilgrimage and remembrance for millions of individuals from every corner of the world.

Stoic monuments and markers dot the landscape where armed combatants once waged a desperate struggle for the future of a nation. Temporary, muddy graves have been replaced by granite stones in the Soldiers’ National Cemetery to denote the sacrifices. Meanwhile, Abraham Lincoln’s venerated words of consecration have been transmuted into bronze. The landscape continues to beckon and inspire modern Americans in dramatic ways. In this sense, photographs from the 20th and 21st centuries serve as significant forms of historical reflection. Gettysburg’s vibrant heritage is a never-ending tale of how we seek to connect with those who have gone before us.

Historian Jared Frederick, himself intimately connected to the Gettysburg Battlefield as a former park ranger, has scoured the park archives and other collections for images of the famous and not-so-famous moments that have defined the present-day battlefield. His efforts have yielded a fascinating collection of photographs and commentary that chronicle the broad scope of the park’s evolution since the bustling tourism days of the 1950s. Analyzing the Baby Boomer era through the battle’s 2013 sesquicentennial, readers will be treated to a visual chronology of Gettysburg National Military Park’s continual transformations. Most importantly, the images on the following pages highlight the ways in which the National Park has been commemorated, celebrated, defined, and redefined throughout the ages.

Chapter one explores various episodes of park history from the 1950s through the 1990s, when battlefield visitation skyrocketed. The second chapter examines snapshots of the visitor experience in more recent years. The book’s subsequent section studies the dramatic changes brought forth through Landscape Restoration while the final chapter marks the 150th anniversary of the battle.

Denoting the contributions and observances of staff and visitors from all walks of life, the visuals presented in these chapters are a mosaic of America’s most-visited battlefield. Much like Alexander Gardner’s 1863 negatives, the photos here elicit the alluring power of Gettysburg and its centrality to our national story. As the National Park Service celebrates its 100th anniversary, these images serve as a timely reminder of the many meanings and emotions Gettysburg evokes.

My book is now available on Amazon and various stores in Gettysburg itself. For personalized copies, feel free to email me. While hundreds of books have been written on this iconic landmark, I guarantee that this book has some new perspectives to offer.

 Pickett's Charge: 150 years later.
 



Friday, September 25, 2015

Educating at the National WWII Museum




I recently had the opportunity to chat with Jeremy Collins, the Director of Travel & Conference Services at the National World War II Museum in New Orleans. In this interview, he discusses his career path as well as the programs offered by the museum. Also revealing are his rewards of working at this phenomenal museum.

How did you end up at the National WWII Museum?  What does your position entail?

Like many History Majors, I found myself facing my last semester at the University of Missouri in Columbia without a clear idea of what I wanted to do or could do with a History Degree.  Fortunately, during Thanksgiving 2000, my family went to New Orleans to visit my brother.  He had just moved down there and created an itinerary for us for that weekend.  One of the stops was at the newly opened National D-Day Museum, which opened on June 6, 2000.

As I walked through the exhibits and felt history come to life, I looked around and could tell that all of the other visitors that day had the same feeling.  I thought “Well this could be a cool thing to do when I graduate!”

The following months saw me communicating with the Curator of the Museum discussing a possible summer internship.  I was able to work for the summer as the Museum prepared to open its “D-Days in the Pacific” Gallery, which was set to open in December 2001.  As the summer ended, I offered to extend my internship through the completion and opening of the Pacific Gallery.  They agreed and told me that they would even hold my position after graduation.  I accepted!

The museum has a number of dynamic speakers lined up in the forthcoming weeks.  What topics have visitors been greeted to and what is up next?

We have a very full and enriching line up of programming throughout the year.  In July, Jonathan Jordan spoke on his latest book “American Warlords,” about FDR and his war cabinet that led the country to victory.  This was followed by Alex Kershaw’s official book launch for his latest “Avenue of Spies” on August 4th.  It is about an American doctor who was Paris during the war. On September 1st we hosted Dr. Elizabeth Norman, who spoke of the nurses of Bataan.  Her book, “We Band of Angles,” discusses how these women helped the men during the battle, and then their subsequent captivity in the Japanese camps.

On September 17th we were honored to have the 2015 Pulitzer Prize Winner Dr. David Kertzer, whose book, “The Pope and Mussolini,” traces the dual paths that Il Duce and Pope Pius XI went on in the years leading up to WWII.

Today, we are partnering with the 100th Bomb Group Reunion Association to host a public program on Operation CHOWHOUND, an American operation, combined with the British Operation MANNA, which helped feed the starving people of Holland in April/May 1945, following the starvation winter of 1944/45.

On September 30th we are hosting a young historian, Jessica Greenburg, who will speak on her grandfather’s personal experience at the end of the war in Europe as he helped reopen the very first synagogue in post-war Berlin.

See a full listing of the museum's events here

Rick Atkinson unveils his newest book in May of 2013 at the museum.

How do you think guest lecturers benefit museums?

These lectures, like previous ones, receive extremely wide exposure, especially with the Museum’s 100,000+ members around the country.  We promote heavily to all of our members and supporters, particularly since we began to live stream them. These are all people who will: 1) buy a copy of the book the speaker is talking about or: 2) get more involved with the Museum’s mission and plans for the future.

As America’s National WWII Museum, we have found that our speakers see a tremendous value in being associated with our wonderful institution.

For those who cannot attend your museum events in person, how can they still take advantage of these opportunities?

All of these programs are filmed and streamed live on the Museum’s Livestream account.  The direct links are created 2-4 weeks in advance of the program.

What overseas adventures does the museum offer to adults and students alike?

The Museum has been leading adult travel programs overseas for over a decade now.  While most of our adult tours run to Normandy, we have expanded upon our offerings over the years.  This has included the Pacific, Mediterranean, England, the Ardennes, Germany and Russia.  Over the coming 12 months we will be running a Pearl Harbor tour, a Band of Brothers tour, Battle of the Bulge, and a number of Normandy tours.  We will also be touring eastern Germany and Poland as well!

Three years ago we started our Normandy Academy, which brings students to New Orleans for a few days of preparatory work and then over to Normandy for a full week.  These students are not just passengers on a trip, but rather part of the program, as they study and then lecture on specific sites of D-Day and even debate one another as to the decisions made by the commanders on both sides.

We also offer a full week program that brings students down to New Orleans for a more in-depth experience at the Museum, but also takes them to other historic sites that our city has to offer, including the Chalmette Battlefield where Andrew Jackson won the Battle of New Orleans.

Next summer we will begin a longer program out at Pearl Harbor where students will have a mix of classroom instruction and battlefield touring.

What do you enjoy most about your job?  What has been your most memorable moment?

Having just passed my 14 year mark there are certainly a dozen moments each year that I could recount, but I will name a few.

Having the opportunity to have meet some of the leading scholars and authors in the field and working with them on our various programs.  These includes Rick Atkinson, Don Miller, Richard Frank, Sir Max Hastings, Antony Beevor, Alex Kershaw, Lynne Olson…the list goes on and on, and I feel bad for leaving so many great people off this list, but I figured this list would be very familiar with your readers.

Traveling to various points of the world with history buffs who are eager to learn about this epic event has opened my eyes immensely.  There is hardly a better way to learn than to walk the ground and see the sites that the war was fought.  From Omaha Beach, to the hill that Audrey Murphy took in Southern France for his DSC; the Castle that overlooks the hill which Vernon Baker attacked, receiving the Medal of Honor for his actions 50 years after the fact; looking out over the open rice field that the 6th Rangers crawled through to reach the gates of Cabanatuan.

Again, this list could go on and on as well.

Lastly, and most importantly, is the opportunity that I have had to meet veterans.  As I type this I am watching the 1952 film “Above and Beyond” with Robert Taylor portraying Paul Tibbets.  I had the honor of escorting Gen. Tibbets when he was at the Museum for our 2001 Pacific Grand Opening weekend.  I was honored to have developed a brief, and long-distance friendship with Medal of Honor recipient Walt Ehlers of the 1st Infantry Division.  Lt. Col. Dick Cole, Jimmy Doolittle’s co-pilot has been a frequent visitor and speaker at the Museum too.  He just turned 100 years old!

These veterans are all famous, and wonderful individuals, but I would have to say that the veterans who volunteer at the Museum, those that I have really grown close to over the last 14 years, are the ones I have learned the most from and really cherish the memories I have, especially as there are fewer and fewer over the years.

Jeremy Collins at Middleside Barracks in Corregidor.

Sunday, August 9, 2015

Sin or Salvation? The Atomic Bomb at 70


As the world has observed the 70th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki this week, journalists, pundits, and historians have inevitably debated the necessity and moral dilemmas of the cataclysmic finale to World War II. As I browsed various opinion pieces I, too, found myself increasingly torn over the issue--and I'm no hawk. Written words cannot fully measure the horror unleashed by the bombs "Little Boy" and "Fat Man" that simultaneously triggered a forty-five year Cold War. On the other hand, the question of Japanese resistance to a non-nuclear strategy remains more uncertain.

Let us take a few things into consideration: The vast majority of the Japanese naval and air forces had already been pulverized by the Allies in the various Pacific campaigns. Sixty-seven major cities in Japan had been ruthlessly firebombed under the direction of General Curtis LeMay. Were atomic weapons of this scale a true necessity to Allied triumph? Professor Gar Alperovitz of the University of Maryland notes in an article:

"Despite the terrible concentrated power of atomic weapons, the firebombing of Tokyo earlier in 1945 and the destruction of numerous Japanese cities by conventional bombing had killed far more people. The Navy Museum acknowledges what many historians have long known: It was only with the entry of the Soviet Union’s Red Army into the war two days after the bombing of Hiroshima that the Japanese moved to finally surrender. Japan was used to losing cities to American bombing; what their military leaders feared more was the destruction of the country’s military by an all-out Red Army assault. 

"The top American military leaders who fought World War II, much to the surprise of many who are not aware of the record, were quite clear that the atomic bomb was unnecessary, that Japan was on the verge of surrender, and—for many—that the destruction of large numbers of civilians was immoral."

Alperovitz makes a compelling argument that reveals the moral gray area to which Americans descended. Even Dwight Eisenhower had grave reservations about implementing atomic weapons, later correctly acknowledging that it set the world down a dangerous path. On paper, so it seemed, the Japanese were done for.

However, I would argue that the destruction of war infrastructure does not always equate to destruction of an enemy's will to fight. In fact, it can achieve quite the opposite. As with many articles, Alperovitz completely overlooks or simplifies the strict military mindset that dominated Japanese culture before and during WWII--as well as the vast atrocities committed in the emperor's name, including incomprehensible genocide in China. The Bushido, or "the way of the warrior," inhibited any other potentials for peace unless the hopelessness of Japan's cause could be conveyed through something even more terrible than firebombings.

Prior casualties on Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Saipan in 1945 are not indicative of an enemy losing their resolve. Each of those battles carries a similar narrative: The Japanese were out-manned, outgunned, under-supplied, cut off, and devoutly defending their home turf. Yet, they fought on with extremism that astounded their adversaries. Thousands of Japanese schoolchildren were being trained with bamboo pikes to await the onslaught. Buildups of Japanese troops around Kyushu and other potential invasion landing sites reveal the same. 5,000 American naval personnel were killed in Kamikaze attacks in the months prior. On Iwo Jima that February and March, commander Tadamichi Kuribayashi order his troops not to commit suicide banzai attacks--yet they did. Some 20,000 Japanese civilians committed suicide on Saipan rather than submit to American invaders. In what alternative universe could we think the situation would be different on the Japanese homeland if it were invaded?

Even if the Japanese government desired to surrender, Americans felt there was no guarantee the military or the populace would follow suit. These fears nearly materialized on August 14, 1945--the day before Japan announced surrender. Known as the Kyūjō Incident, sects of the military attempted a coup at the Emperor's Palace in the hope of preventing unconditional surrender. The Allies had little way of knowing whether or not such potential uprisings could be widespread.

MIT Scientist Karl Compton visited Japan to survey the destruction shortly after the war. He wrote in an article in The Atlantic:

"About a week after V-J Day I was one of a small group of scientists and engineers interrogating an intelligent, well-informed Japanese Army officer in Yokohama. We asked him what, in his opinion, would have been the next major move if the war had continued. He replied: "You would probably have tried to invade our homeland with a landing operation on Kyushu about November 1. I think the attack would have been made on such and such beaches."

"'Could you have repelled this landing?' we asked, and he answered: 'It would have been a very desperate fight, but I do not think we could have stopped you.'

"'What would have happened then?' we asked.

"He replied: 'We would have kept on fighting until all Japanese were killed, but we would not have been defeated,' by which he meant that they would not have been disgraced by surrender."


Compton's encounter reveals that a lack of planes, carriers, and tanks would not equate to complete or peaceful surrender. That would require something far more terrible that came in the form of Oppenheimer's devastating creation. The tens of thousands lost at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was truly horrendous. Yet Compton also wrote, "No American soldier who survived the bloody struggles on these [Pacific] islands has much sympathy with the view that battle with the Japanese was over as soon as it was clear that their ultimate situation was hopeless." This observation rests at the heart of the argument.

However, many generals were opposed to the bombings. According to another account: "On September 20, 1945 the famous 'hawk' who commanded the Twenty-First Bomber Command, Major General Curtis E. LeMay publicly said flatly at one press conference that the atomic bomb 'had nothing to do with the end of the war.' He said the war would have been over in two weeks without the use of the atomic bomb or the Russian entry into the war." This claim is dubious at best. To say that Russia's entry into the war had no bearing in Japan's surrender it outlandish. The statement also infers that LeMay was on the defensive, boasting of the efficiency of his firebombings in the lead up to atomic weapons. While many generals spoke out afterward, most were silent on the issue as matters were unfolding. Some were not in the information loop until after the fact. Not even Truman knew the full details of the Manhattan Project until he was sworn in after FDR's death. Admiral William Leahy (who was opposed to the dropping of the bomb) did not think the weapon would work, and was surprised when it did. It is not out of the question that many generals were trying to save face in the bombs' aftermath. The notion that a single bomb could outmatch months or years of their meticulous strategic planning was surely surprising if not shocking.

That leads us to the question of morality. Future Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recalled in the brilliant documentary The Fog of War that "LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?" The same question could be asked regarding the bombing of Germany. As far as Allied leaders were concerned, the Axis had to be defeated by their own cruel strategies in order to achieve the greater good. Fire with fire. It is an unfortunate but effective trait one can see played out in many wars of history.

For the four years that the United States was the sole nuclear power, Mutually Assured Destruction among global enemies was not yet a risk, supposedly limiting the threats of nuclear warfare on the international community. But the bombs later became bigger, more dangerous, and more numerous.  While many Americans saw the bombs over Japan as a moral and strategic necessity, so too were the weapons a demonstration of power to keep the encroaching Soviets at bay. This is indisputable. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were political and scientific laboratories as much as they were scenes of a global conflict. George Marshall himself was among the first to note this.

But much of the current historical debate rests in timing--the slowness of Japanese willingness to discuss surrender and the speed at which Americans were willing to utilize weapons of mass destruction. Prior Japanese attacks revealed that mass casualties could be inflicted even with few planes or resources. Unfortunately for Japanese civilians, Truman's greater commitment was to the well-being of his own troops and not the enemy populace. Americans wanted an end to the war and any prolonging of hostilities, in their eyes, would have been the greater of moral offenses. In any scenario, most in the United States felt any roll of the dice regarding the exposure of military personnel to combat was unwarranted if technology could prevent it.

Furthermore, the induction of prime minister Kantarō Suzuki in April 1945 is telling. While Suzuki and the emperor earnestly desired an end to hostilities, it took them many months to do so in face of the staunchly traditional military spine of the Japanese government. The aforementioned coup d'état and assassination attempts against Suzuki certainly indicate an unwillingness to give up. One can see how it was easy for Americans to accept that the capitulation of the emperor might not equate to the fall of his empire if the military took over. Once more, this was a gamble Americans were unwilling to take--and understandably so. Had the Japanese not played a dangerous game of kick the can when it came to peace diplomacy, perhaps some of its terrible losses could have been averted.

Regardless of what generals and politicians reminisced in hindsight, the average GI and sailor felt the bombs spared them of otherwise inevitable confrontation--and it did not take them years to make that conclusion. While an invasion of the Japanese mainland may not have yielded the one million plus casualties figures touted by Truman, the endeavor nevertheless would have been costly. Admiral William Leahy nonetheless calculated that initial invasion tallies could be around 60,000. In this context, the decision between the bomb and invasion was an easy call for a commander-in-chief to make. So, too, was it easy for Americans to accept the carnage of the bombs as they considered the "Japs" subhuman--a belief only strengthened after Americans encountered them in combat.

Given all the conflicting testimony of then and now, neither I or any historian can fully justify the obliteration of two metropolitan cities. There is plenty of evidence on both sides of the argument for people to make a case. All we can do is attempt to understand why people thought it justified at the time. Nobody ever has all the facts, especially those who were front and center in all these issues of 1945. It is easy for us to judge these actions because we know the outcome. Harry Truman did not have that benefit. No matter where you fall on the matter, Hiroshima and Nagasaki nonetheless offer prime platforms to reflect upon the horrific effects of atomic weaponry and to ponder deterrents to war. Over time, I hope we can at least learn that much.

There is more to the story than this.