WWII Memorials: Monuments of Memory

World War II Memorials: Monuments of Memory: The Hiroshima Peace Memorial and the National World War II Memorial Morgan Parrish Bachelor Environmental Design in Architecture, 2016 North Carolina State University mrparri2@ncsu.edu 336.831.7465

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

Outline: I. Introduction Thesis and the road map of the paper II. A Second Great War Ended: Immediate Responses to World War II A. Heiwatoshi, the “City of Peace” B. American soldiers and the living memorial III. Memorial Beginnings: Choice of Site A. Ground zero and a new identity B. The main axis of the National Mall and the call for future soldiers IV. Architectural Elements: Establishing Universality A. Representing the civilian as part of a greater whole through artifacts B. Inscriptions as calls to action C. Classicism and the heroic scale D. Abstracting the soldier and emphasizing geography V. Controversies: History Rewritten A. Dissociation from war and the suppression of reality B. Past sacrifice versus future need VI. Conclusion

2

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

3

World War II Memorials: Monuments of Memory: The Hiroshima Peace Memorial and the National World War II Memorial Abstract: After the end of World War II, nations sought ways to remember its pivotal events. This paper examines two of the memorials honoring the war, namely the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan and the United States’ National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C. Each memorial is discussed in relation to the nation’s initial response to the war and its propagandist desire to present a specific picture of the war to posterity. The Hiroshima Peace Memorial remembers the victims of the atomic bomb and serves as a key component in the city’s new identity as a “City of Peace;” inversely, the National World War II Memorial celebrates military victory and the untouchable morality of the soldier. Though the memorials present different sides of the same war, both establish a universal claim and a sense of national unity through their selections of site and their architectural elements.

From 1939 to 1945, nations across the globe plummeted into a war that leveled entire cities and left staggering numbers of casualties in its wake. When the curtains of World War II finally closed, countries were forced to deal with the loss, the chaos, and the responsibility of documenting for posterity the events that consumed an entire decade.

Two nations in particular, Japan and the United States, erected memorials to honor the war; these memorials, the Hiroshima Peace Memorial in Japan and the National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., utilize context and architectural elements to depict a selective reality of the war that establishes universal claims and national unity for future generations.

A Second Great War Ended: Immediate Responses to World War II The war’s end brought with it the decision of how to cope with years of horrific events. Almost immediately, Hiroshima began to construct memorials to honor the atomic bomb victims and to heal the community. In March of 1946, the first element of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park emerged in the memorial tower, a vessel to hold and

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

4

heal the spirits of the unknown victims1. A few months later, Mayor Hamai Shinzō held the first annual commemorative ceremony on August 6th, 1946, exactly one year after the atomic bomb fell on the city; he stated the city restoration council’s goal to redefine Hiroshima as a heiwatoshi, a “city of peace.”2 The city planned to dissociate itself from the war and to instead assert itself as a beacon of hibakusha – “not retaliation, but reconciliation” – for the world.3 Just as Hiroshima sought to distance itself from the horrors of war, the United States initially attempted to forget the chaos of the past decade. Unlike Hiroshima, however, the United States distanced the war not by erecting monuments but by continuing with the daily life the war interrupted. With the 1944 G. I. Bill promising them education and houses, the returning veterans sought to acquire jobs, raise families, and support the still-recovering economy.4 The nation’s heroes wanted “living memorials” instead of solid, stone structures. Mills defines these living memorials as useful, New Deal-esque additions to the community, such as hospital beds, community centers, playgrounds, parks, and schools.5 Soldiers’ names became associated with joyful children, healed patients, and blossoming communities rather than death, destruction, and the morbidity of war.

Though manifest in different ways, both the United States and Hiroshima initially desired to turn far, far away from the recent tragedies of war.

Memorial Beginnings: Choice of Site

1

Miyamoto, Yuki. Beyond the Mushroom Cloud: Commemoration, Religion, and Responsibility After Ibid., 29.

3 Ibid., 29. The hibakusha philosophy was adopted by many throughout Japan after the end of World War II and even began to feature in political debates amongst the nation’s parties.

4 Shanken, Andrew M. “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States During World War II.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 1 (2002): 130 – 147. Also, Figure 1.

5 Mills, Nicolaus. Their Last Battle: The Fight for the National World War II Memorial. New York: Basic Books, 2004, xxiv. (Hereafter, Their Last Battle.)

2

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

5

As Hiroshima sought to use the Peace Memorial as a tool in its creation of a City of Peace, the choice to locate the Memorial on Ground Zero emphasized this redefined identity. From its outset, the Memorial told the story of pacifism emerging from atomic bomb victims. By using the 122,100 square meter epicenter of the atomic bombing as the ground for the Memorial, Hiroshima literally asserted its new peaceful identity on top of the troubles of war.6 The site, an isosceles triangle bounded on two sides by rivers, features the remains of the A-Bomb Dome at its point as an acknowledgement of the nation’s sorrows and a promise to resist such horrors for future generations.7 In using Ground Zero, Hiroshima emphasizes the atomic bomb’s importance in the war and once again dissociates the event from the war’s other causes, victims, and horrors. The site inherently possesses a morbid importance to the Japanese people, and the construction of the Peace Memorial provides it a powerful association with the city’s and the nation’s redefined identity of peace.

Unlike the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, the National World War II Memorial sits on the National Mall, not on the site of a significant wartime event. Yet, its site serves as an influential instrument in the defining of the war’s role in the nation’s history and the establishment of a national unity in a time of tumult. Designed decades after World War II, the National Memorial was influenced by a nation torn into disunity and chaos by the politically controversial Vietnam War. After Vietnam, the nation’s citizens lost the reverence, the respect, and the trust of the American soldier that once dominated the

6

Giamo, Benedict. “Myth of the Vanquished: The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.” The American Quarterly55, no. 4 (2003): 703 – 728. (Hereafter, “Myth of the Vanquished”) 7 Ibid. The site is bounded on the East the Motoyasu River and the West by the Honkawa River.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

6

nation’s approach to its military.8 The government needed to reassert the soldier as purely good, untouchable, and beyond reproach; to do so, the American Battle Monuments Commission chose a site to honor the veterans of World War II – the war viewed by the American public in the highest esteem as the “greatest generation’s” battle between good and evil – along the National Mall’s main axis. Through its alignment with Washington, the defining figure of the 18th century, and Lincoln, the defining figure of the 19th century, the Memorial’s site asserts World War II’s place as the defining event of the twentieth century and proclaims the soldier’s importance for future generations.9

Architectural Elements: Establishing Universality A beacon of reconciliation to the world, Hiroshima’s Peace Memorial Park presents the civilian victimized by the atomic bomb as a piece of a much larger whole. As Miyamoto states, the main building of the park becomes a “life-size diorama,” offering an overwhelming number of artifacts, images, bodies, and overall destruction.10 The Memorial does not attempt to apply a meaningful narrative to the artifacts; rather, the Memorial presents the items as a mass of evidence – documentation of the effects of nuclear bombs. Walking through the halls, the visitor must generate his or her own meaning from the prolific damaged items. By documenting the bomb’s effects rather than proclaiming their significance, the Peace Memorial subtly makes each victim a component in a universal deterrent away from nuclear weapons and towards worldwide peace.

8

Hass, Kristin. Sacrificing Soldiers on the National Mall. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013, 162. (Hereafter, Sacrificing Soldiers on the National Mall.)

9 Ibid., 160.

10 Beyond the Mushroom Cloud…, 73.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

7

The inscription on the cenotaph in the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park further serves the Park’s collective call to peace. Located near the center of the Park with views of the A-Bomb Dome and the Peace Flame, the cenotaph sits in a central area of importance and easy access for visitors. Inscribed in its smooth surface, the words, “Let all the souls here rest in peace, for we shall not repeat the evil,” unite individuals in a common responsibility to combat such horrific events in the future.11 The inscription ambiguously refers to “we,” a choice that Giamo describes as a call to people groups across the globe to assume responsibility for destruction on as massive of a scale as that which occurred at Hiroshima.12 The phrase establishes the Memorial’s position that the nuclear bombing of Japan serves not just as a devastating act for one nation, but also as a blow to all. Rather than dwell on the destruction, however, the inscription posits the hope that such obliteration shall not again occur. Through its inscription on the cenotaph, the Peace Memorial proclaims the incredible loss of World War II’s final event as the promising beginning of universal peace.

Just as the Hiroshima Peace Memorial presents a massive collection of artifacts to establish universality, the National World War II Memorial uses a heroic scale to emphasize the victory of the entire military over the individual. Sainte Florian’s design incorporates Classical columns and details; as Classicism is a familiar architectural language to the National Mall and Washington, D.C., the architectural typology of the Memorial relates it to monuments honoring America’s most important figures, from Jefferson to nearby Lincoln, and therefore assert’s its place as a triumphant, prideful

11 12

Ibid., 33. Also, Figure 4.

“Myth of the Vanquished…,” 703 – 728.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

8

moment of American history.13 At the design’s inception, critics disagreed with the Memorial’s size and overall grandeur. Yet, as Hass argues, just as the Memorial sought to assert the War’s significance through its choice of site, its heroic scale overpowers the nearby Vietnam and Korean War Memorials to demonstrate its role as the defining event of the 20th century.14 In relation to the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, the National World War II Memorial establishes universality on a smaller scale; it calls one nation to unanimously recognize its military’s righteous might as opposed to the worldwide recognition of peace called for in Hiroshima.

Furthermore, the individual soldier’s identity in the National World War II Memorial dissolves into an abstraction, just as the individual civilian’s character disappears in the mass of artifacts in Hiroshima. In the National Memorial, soldiers lost in the war are represented through gold stars on the wall nearest the Lincoln Memorial.15 Small and compact, they slip into the shadows of the two 43’ tall pavilions representing the Atlantic and Pacific theaters of war and the fifty-six 17’ tall pillars representing the states and territories that compose the remainder of the Memorial.16 By minimizing and abstracting the sacrifice of each soldier into one small component of the greater design, the Memorial emphasizes the victory of the entire military rather than the survival of one man. Similar to Hiroshima’s impersonal display of the overall destruction of the atomic bomb and devotion to the hope of future peace, the Memorial’s overpowering focus on the geography of the war rather than the individual soldier renders personal grief irrelevant and celebrates the victory of a righteous, pure national military. By

13

Sacrificing Soldiers on the National Mall…, 160.

Their Last Battle…, xxviii.

15 Figure 2.

16 Figure 3.

14

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture

9

emphasizing the military over the soldier, the National World War II Memorial serves as a tool for national pride and unity for generations to come.

Controversies: History Rewritten Critics argue that the Hiroshima Peace Memorial too greatly dissociates the dropping of the atomic bomb from the larger context of World War II. The reasons for the bombing disappear amidst the mountain of artifacts, and the ambiguous wording of inscriptions removes entirely any parties involved in the conflict. As Giamo asserts in his writing, the Memorial appears to rewrite history to remove all gruesome facts of war besides those associated with the Hiroshima bombing; here, the victims of the bombing become elevated above all others, from soldiers to Holocaust prisoners, as those scarred deepest by the war.17 The lack of context in the Memorial disturbs critics, as they feel it fails to accurately portray the events of the war and the bombings for future generations.

Despite the opposition, the Memorial serves as a powerful, if selective, reminder of the nuclear bombings and as a plea for future peace.

The National World War II Memorial, too, controversially rewrites history to serve a political purpose. As Hass argues in her book, the National Memorial removes the gruesome, unattractive aspects of World War II in favor of the heroic, simple, and righteous.18 Like a Hollywood movie, the National Memorial paints a fantastic story of the heroic triumph of good over evil to inspire future patriotism, support for the military, and pride in a nation’s soldiers. Just as at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial, critics argue that the National Memorial removes too many components of the war and displays an

17 18

“Myth of the Vanquished…,” 703 – 728.

Sacrificing Soldiers on the National Mall…, 194.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 10

inaccurate description for posterity. They also feel the abstraction of the individual soldier too greatly downplays the extreme loss experienced by the nation, especially because the leaving of personal items by grieving loved ones of the lost is strictly prohibited.19 Though the critics raise noteworthy points, the National World War II Memorial ultimately accomplishes its goal of establishing the war’s place in history as the glorious victory of an entire nation.

Conclusion A war unlike any the world had witnessed forced nations to deal with staggering losses of life and to determine how to proceed after the fighting ceased. For the war’s major players, monuments and memorials were designed to solidify the war’s place in history. In Hiroshima, Japan, a Peace Memorial, a key component for the city’s identification as a “City of Peace,” documenting the devastating effects of the atomic bomb emerged within ten years of the war’s close as a symbol of the city’s new identity – a “City of Peace.” In Washington, D.C. in the United States, the National World War II Memorial presented not a call to peace but a testament of military might; the Memorial celebrates victory rather than victimhood and, through choice of site and architectural language, emphasizes the war’s importance. Ultimately, both memorials selectively present opposing messages for similar purposes: to call future generations to not only remember the war in a certain light, but also to respond to its events on a universal scale.

19

Ibid., 192.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 11

Bibliography Giamo, Benedict. “Myth of the Vanquished: The Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum.”

The American Quarterly 55, no. 4 (2003): 703 – 728.

This journal article provides a detailed analysis and critique of the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum in terms of its architectural elements, context, and political associations. Giamo argues that the Memorial dissociates the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima from the other acts of World War II and prohibits similar bombings in the future.

Hass, Kristin. Sacrificing Soldiers on the National Mall. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2013.

In her book, Hass discusses the emergence in the past few decades of the war memorial as a key element to the National Mall. For her discussion of the National World War II Memorial, she presents the extensive, arduous design process and the different meanings and reactions associated with each element of the final work.

Levinson, Sanford. “Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape.” The Public Historian 33.1 (Winter 2011): 103-105.

In his review of Kirk Savage’s book Monument Wars: Washington, D.C., the National Mall, and the Transformation of the Memorial Landscape, Levinson discusses how the introduction of the numerous memorials to the United States National Mall in the past few decades has greatly influenced its depiction of the nation. As Levinson analyzes Savage’s work, he points out how the location of the monuments and their chosen subjects, especially those dealing with war, confuse the identities of the American hero and the American victim.

Lubell, Sam. “National World War II Memorial Opens in Washington D.C.” Architectural Record 192, issue 6 (June 2004): 56 – 56.

Though small in length, this Architectural Record article offers an insightful peek into the mind of the architect behind the United States World War II Memorial. In his description of the Memorial, Lubell elaborates on the architectural language used, the motives of the architect, and the overall success of the design.

Mills, Nicolaus. Their Last Battle: The Fight for the National World War II Memorial.

New York: Basic Books, 2004.

In a struggle that lasted more than four times as long as America’s participation in World War II itself, the fight for the National World War II Memorial saw great controversy. Mills discusses in depth this controversy, the similar controversy of other war memorials on the National Mall, the support that finally achieved the World War II memorial, and the larger implications of such a massive debate.

Miyamoto, Yuki. Beyond the Mushroom Cloud: Commemoration, Religion, and Responsibility After Hiroshima. New York: Fordham University Press, 2012.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 12

In his book, Miyamoto discusses the world’s responses to the Hiroshima bombing of World War II. During his discussion, he analyzes the importance of remembering the acts of war, specifically the Hiroshima bombing, through memorials. He discusses Hiroshima’s decision to redefine itself as a City of Peace after the bombings and demonstrates how the Peace Memorial fits into this identity transformation.

Reynolds, Jonathan M. Maekawa Kunio and the Emergence of Japanese Modernist Architecture. University of California Press, 2001.

In his discussion of Japanese Modernist Architecture, Reynolds analyzes Maekawa’s submission to the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere Memorial Hall competition in Japan. Maekawa’s design was not chosen, but Tange Kenzō’s was, and though his design was never built for this competition, it heavily influenced his design for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum discussed in this paper. Reynolds’ work sheds light on the competition and the beginnings of Kenzō’s design.

Shanken, Andrew M. “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 1 (2002): 130 – 147.

Through a discussion of different ideas and proposals for memorials in the United States during World War II, Shanken argues that the idea of the memorial itself transformed. People believe a memorial represents their society, and they no longer wish to see stagnant obelisks and standard columns, but instead to walk through and interact with architectural elements as “living memorials.”

U. S. Government Printing Office. “Commemorative Works Act; Selection of the World War II Memorial; and Air Force Memorial.” Congressional Hearing, United States One Hundred Fifth Congress, 1997.

During the U. S. Congressional Hearing discussed in this publication, the members of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation discussed the appropriate placement and design of the National World War II Memorial.

Internet Sources “Hiroshima Peace Site.” Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. 2011, accessed October 2014. http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html.

The official website for the Hiroshima Peace Memorial provides historical information for both the memorial and the museum, a detailed map of the memorial park, and a timeline of historical events regarding the memorial.

“National WWII Memorial: Washington, D.C.” American Battle Monuments Commission. 2003, accessed October 2014. http://www.wwiimemorial.com/.

The official website for the National WWII Memorial provides historical information for the memorial, a detailed timeline of events, and a map of the memorial and its surrounding context.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 13

Figure 1: Ste. Florian’s World War II Memorial, Shanken, Andrew M. “Planning Memory: Living Memorials in the United States during World War II.” The Art Bulletin 84, no. 1 (2002).

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 14

Figure 2: The Wall of Stars, “National WWII Memorial: Washington, D.C.” American Battle Monuments Commission. 2003, http://www.wwiimemorial.com/.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 15

Figure 3: The Wall of Stars, “National WWII Memorial: Washington, D.C.” American Battle Monuments Commission. 2003, http://www.wwiimemorial.com/.

Morgan Parrish – World War II Memorials – ARC 441 – History of Contemporary Architecture 16

Figure 4: Hiroshima Peace Memorial Cenotaph, “Hiroshima Peace Site.” Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. 2011, http://www.pcf.city.hiroshima.jp/index_e2.html.