What wasn’t the US telling about Hiroshima? A reporter found out.

The book “Fallout” examines John Hersey’s reporting in The New Yorker in 1946, which set the agenda for anti-nuclear activism.

Courtesy of Simon & Schuster
“Fallout: The Hiroshima Cover-up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the World” by Lesley M.M. Blume, Simon & Schuster, 288 pp.

In August of 1945, the world changed when the United States detonated the first atomic bombs in Japan. The bombings were the “least abhorrent choice,” according to then-Secretary of War Henry Lewis Stimson. They ended the war with Japan. But the truth was much more complicated.

In “Fallout: The Hiroshima Cover-up and the Reporter Who Revealed It to the World,” Lesley M.M. Blume goes behind the scenes of journalist John Hersey’s reporting on Hiroshima, which was published in 1946 in The New Yorker. “Fallout” is not a rehashing of Hersey’s reporting, but rather a deconstruction of the dynamics among Hersey, his editor William Shawn, and New Yorker founder Harold Ross, that made the article’s publication possible.

In 1946, it was daring for any publication to report on what happened to the victims in Japan. As Hersey and The New Yorker reported, there was a need to cast a light on what was happening on the ground versus what Americans were hearing from the U.S. government spin machine. We often forget that the bombings took the lives of 42,000 Hiroshima residents instantly, and left in its wake a litany of deaths and health effects from the radiation. Hersey’s calculations pushed the number of deaths into the hundreds of thousands.

One story that Blume tracks is that of Hersey, who was a young reporter when he tackled this project. “Fallout” could easily read like a historical thriller, painting the story of Hersey’s work and his reporting from the victims’ point of view.

Just as the bombs had catastrophic consequences and enormous impact, so too did the release of Hersey’s story, which caused its own explosions. Blume digs into what happens when the media – which was a much less powerful institution than it is now – exposed the government’s cover-up. Later, Hersey’s article would be published as a book on what the bombings meant, and it set the tone of the debate on the future of nuclear warfare.

Remember, too, that this discussion was unfolding long before the 24-hour news cycle and social media existed. There was no Facebook or Twitter to highlight Hersey’s conversations in Japan with survivors. In 2020, there would be blogs, and interviews and insight from pundits as well as the voices of those in Japan who survived. 

It is also important to see that the article in The New Yorker will forever be a part of the narrative of war and its casualties.

As a history lover, I find that “Fallout” gives powerful insights into the way that a government can weave a story to justify the actions it takes, and also into the fearless reporting about what really happened in Hiroshima. Blume’s tireless reporting gives important context to an understudied slice of U.S. history. Even 75 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, her work and Hersey’s writing critique how the bombings have been remembered in American and world history. Most important, they question whether anything would ever truly justify another nuclear bombing.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.