*The following post is an excerpt from a paper I wrote during my master’s program. BUT something I would like to point out is it’s important to understand that presenting information about/studying WWII isn’t and shouldn’t be limited to an academic setting. The key to continuing the discussion of the war within today’s society is the ability to adapt the delivery of information into more digestible formats. For example, here on Substack but also on social media or even as a discussion among friends can be a great way to find those threads of relatability!
Memory is showcased in a myriad of ways within a society and that collective memory is then given a physical representation by way of a memorial, through an institution of living memory, or ruins that have survived the ravages of time. The same can be said when analyzing a war memorial, “whether a statue, a place, a building, or a combination of these and other elements, we see a social and physical arrangement of space and artifacts to keep alive the memories of persons who participated in or are affected by war”. The relationship between ruins and their effect on memory within a certain space is “the dissipation of ruins portends the total annihilation of memory, so that in the future even reminders of our own existence might have no sites in which to reside, no traces from which to be remembered.” Such a relationship between space and memory is complex but can be used to explain why Hiroshima chose to preserve the remains of the Genbaku Dome and how the decaying building became such an integral part of present-day society.
Ruins tell an intriguing story of what a society deems worth remembering or what deserves to be forgotten. A unique characteristic of ruins is that they are not “passive remains but active cultural agents that transverse their status of remaining parts of a lost whole and accrue an identity of their own as ruins; they become monuments qua [as] ruins and not just ruins of monuments.” In the years after the post atomic bomb drop, the identity of the Genbaku Dome has transformed from one of intense pain and suffering into a noteworthy beacon of peace on a global scale. What makes the ruins of the former Promotion Hall particularly distinctive is that Japan, specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are the only victims of nuclear warfare so no other structure in the world can compare in terms of having such global significance and eventual societal inclusion.
The Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall pre-atomic bomb. (Photo courtesy of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum).
The original domed building was built in 1915 by Czech architect Jan Letzel and is located 260 meters away from Aioi Bridge (the original target of the atomic bomb “Little Boy”) in the once bustling military city of Hiroshima. Thanks to Letzel’s use of steel and stone construction, the former Promotion Hall was one of a few structures left standing near the bomb’s hypocenter (the building stood 160 meters from the blast site). When observing the ruins that are now the focal point of a staggering Memorial Peace Park, onlookers are met with a stark image of seemingly paradoxical origin, destruction framed by revival. The message of this scene is that remembering how completely the city was destroyed enables us to fully appreciate the miracle of Hiroshima’s rebirth. The notability of this dilapidated structure has carried on through time except in the present day, the building has taken on an entirely new meaning than that of utter destruction.
The concrete ruin itself “performs a visualization of different forms of mourning: we mourn loss, death, decay and destruction; humanity’s futile and successful attempts to master nature; and nature’s indifference to humans and their cruelty against one another”. The ruins of the Genbaku Dome are a physical representation of what happened to the city and the destructive capabilities of human versus human violence. The aftermath of such immediate and total devastation is that the urge to mourn is in direct competition everywhere with the urge to forget, creating the dilemma of whether to leave or remove one of the few physical reminders remaining from that infamous day. What was once a martial city held firm in their military prowess, was reduced to nothing more than the apocalyptic, scorched traces of a former life. Hiroshima was much like the solid bronze dome of the original Promotion Hall, once supported by sturdy walls of brick and stone, extirpated within minutes.
Side view of the A-Bomb Dome (formally known as the Hiroshima Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall) located 160 meters (525 feet) from the atomic hypocenter.
Survivors had mixed emotions when reminiscing about the Genbaku Dome as it represented the loss of everything they once knew. Two-thirds of the population were in favor of its preservation, and one-third preferred its removal. The preservation of the Atomic Bomb Dome remained a contested issue well into the 1960s dividing Hiroshima’s citizens into two camps: those who wanted the site gone because it either brought up painful memories or the location right in the city-center seemed too valuable to be wasted on a ruin, and those who regarded the dome as a persuasive warning against nuclear warfare and as a crowd-puller for visitors to Hiroshima.
In an interview with atomic bomb survivor, Koji Numata, when asked about his thoughts on the dome, he responded with “I don’t want to remember anything (on August 6th). I want to forget it all. When that scene comes back to my head it makes me sick. I want to forget it.” Survivors who experienced the bomb instinctively wanted the ruins torn down almost like a defense mechanism. Citizens of Hiroshima were too busy reeling from shock, trying to gather up the remnants from their lives and did not even consider commemoration until years later. At that specific moment in time, the ruins of the Prefecture Industrial Promotion Hall were just that, ruins. A crippling reminder that needed to be removed from the landscape of the throttled, ash covered city so that eventually she could be reborn. Conversely, another atomic bomb survivor and now photographer Kikuji Kawada, photographs the stains on the walls of the Dome that represent the general atmosphere in Japan before the use of nuclear warfare, as well as almost all the fear he felt during the war. The photos also have a feeling of danger and ending but in his eyes, what is fearful is beautiful. Kawada learned such a complex concept by allowing himself to feel the instinctive emotions that emanated through him by looking at the ruins of the former Promotion Hall but chose to adapt those feelings into that of growth and persevering forward. Such growth is then passed onto residents of and visitors to Hiroshima, through Kawada’s photography, thus transforming the Genbaku Dome into a memorial that depicts advocacy for a better future.
Kikuji Kawada photograph. Atomic Bomb Dome celling stain (1959-1965).
Ultimately, Hiroshima decided to plant the seeds for peace, rather than the seeds for war in their once seared soil, conveying a powerful message of perseverance and education using the ruined structure of the Atomic Bomb Dome.
Hawks, Julie. “TWO DAYS AND SEVENTY YEARS: SITES OF MEMORIES AND SILENCES FROM HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, AND THE UNITED STATES.” University of North Carolina: Thesis, 2016.
Hiroshima Bombing Story | Tour around the Atomic Hypocenter. [11:37-11:50] YouTube. WAO RYU!ONLY in JAPAN, August 5, 2019.
Ichitani, Tomoko. "Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms: the renarrativation of Hiroshima memories." Journal of Narrative Theory 40, no. 3 (2010): 364+. Gale Literature Resource Center (accessed March 3, 2021). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A316203598/LitRC?u=asuniv&sid=LitRC&xid=d76b9614.
Jas, Jazzy. “Monuments in Ruins, Ruins as Monument Evaluation, Protection, Enhancement & Management.” Training Heritage Leaders, January 7, 2018.
Kikuji Kawada on the Atomic Bomb Dome and Postwar Japan. [1:10-1:27] YouTube. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, July 9, 2018.
Lee, Jooyoun. “Yasukuni and Hiroshima in Clash? War and Peace Museums in Contemporary Japan”, 19. Pacific Focus 33, no. 1, 2018.
Lowe, Keith. Prisoners of History: What Monuments to the Second World War Tell Us about Our History and Ourselves, 265. William Collins, 2020.
Moshenska, Gabriel. "Charred Churches or Iron Harvests? Counter-monumentality and the commemoration of the London Blitz ", 13. Journal of Social Archeology, 2010.
Pope, Alan. “The House of Being Still Stands: Nuclear Holocaust and Human Meaning”, 306. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 46, no. 3, 2006.
Schäfer, Stefanie. “From Geisha Girls to the Atomic Bomb Dome: Dark Tourism and the Formation of Hiroshima Memory”, 355. Tourist Studies 16, no. 4, 2016.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome).” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed February 18, 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/775.
Share this post
Memory Within Ruins
Share this post
*The following post is an excerpt from a paper I wrote during my master’s program. BUT something I would like to point out is it’s important to understand that presenting information about/studying WWII isn’t and shouldn’t be limited to an academic setting. The key to continuing the discussion of the war within today’s society is the ability to adapt the delivery of information into more digestible formats. For example, here on Substack but also on social media or even as a discussion among friends can be a great way to find those threads of relatability!
Memory is showcased in a myriad of ways within a society and that collective memory is then given a physical representation by way of a memorial, through an institution of living memory, or ruins that have survived the ravages of time. The same can be said when analyzing a war memorial, “whether a statue, a place, a building, or a combination of these and other elements, we see a social and physical arrangement of space and artifacts to keep alive the memories of persons who participated in or are affected by war”. The relationship between ruins and their effect on memory within a certain space is “the dissipation of ruins portends the total annihilation of memory, so that in the future even reminders of our own existence might have no sites in which to reside, no traces from which to be remembered.” Such a relationship between space and memory is complex but can be used to explain why Hiroshima chose to preserve the remains of the Genbaku Dome and how the decaying building became such an integral part of present-day society.
Ruins tell an intriguing story of what a society deems worth remembering or what deserves to be forgotten. A unique characteristic of ruins is that they are not “passive remains but active cultural agents that transverse their status of remaining parts of a lost whole and accrue an identity of their own as ruins; they become monuments qua [as] ruins and not just ruins of monuments.” In the years after the post atomic bomb drop, the identity of the Genbaku Dome has transformed from one of intense pain and suffering into a noteworthy beacon of peace on a global scale. What makes the ruins of the former Promotion Hall particularly distinctive is that Japan, specifically Hiroshima and Nagasaki, are the only victims of nuclear warfare so no other structure in the world can compare in terms of having such global significance and eventual societal inclusion.
The original domed building was built in 1915 by Czech architect Jan Letzel and is located 260 meters away from Aioi Bridge (the original target of the atomic bomb “Little Boy”) in the once bustling military city of Hiroshima. Thanks to Letzel’s use of steel and stone construction, the former Promotion Hall was one of a few structures left standing near the bomb’s hypocenter (the building stood 160 meters from the blast site). When observing the ruins that are now the focal point of a staggering Memorial Peace Park, onlookers are met with a stark image of seemingly paradoxical origin, destruction framed by revival. The message of this scene is that remembering how completely the city was destroyed enables us to fully appreciate the miracle of Hiroshima’s rebirth. The notability of this dilapidated structure has carried on through time except in the present day, the building has taken on an entirely new meaning than that of utter destruction.
The concrete ruin itself “performs a visualization of different forms of mourning: we mourn loss, death, decay and destruction; humanity’s futile and successful attempts to master nature; and nature’s indifference to humans and their cruelty against one another”. The ruins of the Genbaku Dome are a physical representation of what happened to the city and the destructive capabilities of human versus human violence. The aftermath of such immediate and total devastation is that the urge to mourn is in direct competition everywhere with the urge to forget, creating the dilemma of whether to leave or remove one of the few physical reminders remaining from that infamous day. What was once a martial city held firm in their military prowess, was reduced to nothing more than the apocalyptic, scorched traces of a former life. Hiroshima was much like the solid bronze dome of the original Promotion Hall, once supported by sturdy walls of brick and stone, extirpated within minutes.
Survivors had mixed emotions when reminiscing about the Genbaku Dome as it represented the loss of everything they once knew. Two-thirds of the population were in favor of its preservation, and one-third preferred its removal. The preservation of the Atomic Bomb Dome remained a contested issue well into the 1960s dividing Hiroshima’s citizens into two camps: those who wanted the site gone because it either brought up painful memories or the location right in the city-center seemed too valuable to be wasted on a ruin, and those who regarded the dome as a persuasive warning against nuclear warfare and as a crowd-puller for visitors to Hiroshima.
In an interview with atomic bomb survivor, Koji Numata, when asked about his thoughts on the dome, he responded with “I don’t want to remember anything (on August 6th). I want to forget it all. When that scene comes back to my head it makes me sick. I want to forget it.” Survivors who experienced the bomb instinctively wanted the ruins torn down almost like a defense mechanism. Citizens of Hiroshima were too busy reeling from shock, trying to gather up the remnants from their lives and did not even consider commemoration until years later. At that specific moment in time, the ruins of the Prefecture Industrial Promotion Hall were just that, ruins. A crippling reminder that needed to be removed from the landscape of the throttled, ash covered city so that eventually she could be reborn. Conversely, another atomic bomb survivor and now photographer Kikuji Kawada, photographs the stains on the walls of the Dome that represent the general atmosphere in Japan before the use of nuclear warfare, as well as almost all the fear he felt during the war. The photos also have a feeling of danger and ending but in his eyes, what is fearful is beautiful. Kawada learned such a complex concept by allowing himself to feel the instinctive emotions that emanated through him by looking at the ruins of the former Promotion Hall but chose to adapt those feelings into that of growth and persevering forward. Such growth is then passed onto residents of and visitors to Hiroshima, through Kawada’s photography, thus transforming the Genbaku Dome into a memorial that depicts advocacy for a better future.
Ultimately, Hiroshima decided to plant the seeds for peace, rather than the seeds for war in their once seared soil, conveying a powerful message of perseverance and education using the ruined structure of the Atomic Bomb Dome.
Notes:
Arnold-de Simine, Silke. “The Ruin as Memorial – The Memorial as Ruin”, 101. Performance Research 20, no. 3, 2015. https://inherity.wordpress.com/2018/01/08/monuments-in-ruins-ruins-as-monument-evaluation-protection-enhancement-management/.
Hawks, Julie. “TWO DAYS AND SEVENTY YEARS: SITES OF MEMORIES AND SILENCES FROM HIROSHIMA, NAGASAKI, AND THE UNITED STATES.” University of North Carolina: Thesis, 2016.
Hiroshima Bombing Story | Tour around the Atomic Hypocenter. [11:37-11:50] YouTube. WAO RYU!ONLY in JAPAN, August 5, 2019.
Ichitani, Tomoko. "Town of Evening Calm, Country of Cherry Blossoms: the renarrativation of Hiroshima memories." Journal of Narrative Theory 40, no. 3 (2010): 364+. Gale Literature Resource Center (accessed March 3, 2021). https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A316203598/LitRC?u=asuniv&sid=LitRC&xid=d76b9614.
Jas, Jazzy. “Monuments in Ruins, Ruins as Monument Evaluation, Protection, Enhancement & Management.” Training Heritage Leaders, January 7, 2018.
Kikuji Kawada on the Atomic Bomb Dome and Postwar Japan. [1:10-1:27] YouTube. San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, July 9, 2018.
Lee, Jooyoun. “Yasukuni and Hiroshima in Clash? War and Peace Museums in Contemporary Japan”, 19. Pacific Focus 33, no. 1, 2018.
Lowe, Keith. Prisoners of History: What Monuments to the Second World War Tell Us about Our History and Ourselves, 265. William Collins, 2020.
Moshenska, Gabriel. "Charred Churches or Iron Harvests? Counter-monumentality and the commemoration of the London Blitz ", 13. Journal of Social Archeology, 2010.
Pope, Alan. “The House of Being Still Stands: Nuclear Holocaust and Human Meaning”, 306. Journal of Humanistic Psychology 46, no. 3, 2006.
Schäfer, Stefanie. “From Geisha Girls to the Atomic Bomb Dome: Dark Tourism and the Formation of Hiroshima Memory”, 355. Tourist Studies 16, no. 4, 2016.
UNESCO World Heritage Centre. “Hiroshima Peace Memorial (Genbaku Dome).” UNESCO World Heritage Centre. Accessed February 18, 2021. https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/775.