Article Precis
History and the Culture Wars: The Case of the Smithsonian Institution’s Enola Gay
Exhibition, by Richard H. Kohn, revisits the cancellation of a WW2 B-29 exhibition at the
National Air and Space Museum, in which political pressure overrode scholarly independence at
one of America’s most prestigious cultural institutions. The main concern with the cancellation
of the exhibition is that politics may wield too much power over the presentation of historically
significant exhibitions, potentially suppressing civil discourse. Kohn explores five
interconnected events that he believes led to the outcome. The increasingly critical scholarly
agenda under Smithsonian Secretary Adams and the Air and Space Director Harwit; the Air
Force Association’s organized opposition; the broader culture wars over political correctness; the
1994 Republican congressional victory; and a new Smithsonian secretary unwilling to resist
political pressure. Together, these forces created a situation in which the Smithsonian sacrificed
its independence to secure congressional funding. Kohn warns that if institutions cannot present
an honest, complex history without political interference, the United States risks resembling the
authoritarian regimes it has historically opposed, even at the expense of the national sense of
legitimacy.
​
The article is organized chronologically, tracing the exhibition’s development from its
initial planning through its cancellation. Kohn relies heavily on primary sources, including
exhibition scripts, congressional testimonies, and newspaper articles, and is supported by his
own firsthand observations as a member of NASM’s advisory committee, as seen in the
footnotes on pages 1039 and 1040. The insider access is the article's greatest strength, providing
in-depth detail of the saga, but it is also its greatest source of weakness. His close involvement
makes it difficult to maintain full objectivity, especially when bias towards a perspective that
favors complete independence is present. Further, his involvement leads him to underweigh the
perspective of veterans on the exhibition’s emotional imbalance. Although the article is slightly
limited by its early publication date, as it was written immediately after the exhibition's
cancellation, Kohn’s argument is still well supported and carefully constructed with strong
evidence, and it raises important questions about the relationship between scholarship,
commemoration, and political power.
Discussion Questions
1.​ How does Kohn's personal affiliation with NASM affect his perspective? Does he blame
the museum staff for succumbing to political pressure, or does he place responsibility
elsewhere? To what extent is his argument compromised by his insider status?
2.​ How did Gingrich and the 1994 Republican Congress approach the tension between
commemoration and honest scholarship? Can patriotism and honest historical discourse
coexist without contradicting each other?
3.​ To what extent is political correctness a form of censorship? Can it simultaneously
promote social equality while preserving freedom of honest discourse?
4.​ How does the political pressure that canceled the Enola Gay exhibition compare to efforts
to remove Confederate monuments? Do these two movements contradict each other,
given that both favor idealization over scholarship, but the idealization of the Enola Gay
is often seen more positively, while the Lost Cause is viewed negatively?
5.​ How does American patriotism shape the way Americans perceive and memorialize war?
Does confronting uncomfortable historical truths threaten national identity, and does that
threat explain the reluctance to engage honestly with events like Hiroshima?
6.​ How do the 9/11 Museum's portrayal of innocent Americans versus evil outsiders and the
cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibition both serve to bolster national identity by
avoiding historical complexity? Is simplifying or withholding challenging information
part of a museum's legitimate role?
Article Precis Draft
History and the Culture Wars: The Case of the Smithsonian Institution’s Enola Gay
Exhibition, written by Richard H. Kohn, revisits the cancellation of a WW2 B-29 airplane
exhibition due to political reasons and sensitive issues, specifically the questioning of the
motives for the use of the atomic bomb at the end of WW2, which raised the possibility of
dishonoring American air force veterans and sympathizing with the Japanese cause. The main
concern with the cancellation of the exhibition is that politics may wield too much power over
the presentation of historically significant exhibitions, which could suppress civil discourse and
create a situation in which politicians control the future by controlling the present and the past.
Kohn explores the events and reasons leading up to the exhibition's cancellation to better
understand the situation. Kohn lists five events that he believes led to the outcome. An ambitious
leader who welcomed controversy and criticism. A clear effort of organized opposition. The
greater culture wars and political correctness.
Under Smithsonian Secretary Robert McCormick Adams and the Air and Space Director
Martin Harwit, the museum encouraged critical scholarship, focused on research, and hoped to
“put on exhibits that make people uncomfortable (1039).” The discussions about atomic bombs,
and specifically about the presentation of Enola Gay, quickly escalated into intense, polarized
arguments. Despite the guaranteed conflict, the exhibition aimed to encourage visitors to
understand the facts, but also to revisit the American decision to use the bomb. The chief
supervising curator believed the Enola Gay exhibition created an “unbridgeable chasm between
scholarship and commemoration (1041).” The first script attempted to “combine patriotic
commemoration with serious scholarship (1042),” but seemed to possess a “very clear and potent
point of view (1043).” The first section seemed to sympathize with the Japanese, with the second
section using every opportunity to utilize hindsight to “pose alternatives and raise doubts (1045)”
about the justifiability of the atomic bombs. The third section celebrated American bravery and
technological achievements, but the fourth section overshadows the achievements with a
horrifying emphasis on the personal tragedy of the Japanese experience during and after the
firebombing campaigns, and the dropping of the atomic bombs elicited shock and disgust,
appealing to the emotions of the viewers. These scenes could not only reinforce anxieties about
the usage of the atomic bomb, but also provoke feelings of guilt and shame among American
visitors. The final section focused on the controversy over the use of the atomic bombs, possible
alternative endings to WW2, and the Cold War. The exhibition seemed to create a general
negative sentiment toward atomic bombs, which heavily contributed to the emergence of more
radical ideas about their consequences. The exhibit and script were meant to provoke, raise
controversy, and promote complexity through education and commemoration, and after the
approval from the Exhibit Advisory Committee, they believed it was ready for the public. The
committee underestimated the public reaction against the script, especially from the Air Force
Association.
The Air Force Association promoted air power and the air force and had evolved into a
large, powerful advocate for a strong national defense and a chief connecting link between the air
force and its industrial suppliers. The association had come to view the Smithsonian with
suspicion, and the exhibition script confirmed their worst fears. The “hidden political messages
in all those documents” were especially offensive to the association representing tens of
thousands of air force veterans, suggesting that the script was challenging their honor. Although
Adams may have shown “little respect for military history (1039),” the Air Force Association
publicly assaulted Adams and Harwit in their Air Force Magazine, accusing them of neglecting
its primary task of preserving its priceless artifacts and of believing that the NASM and
Smithsonian curators were anti-military (1050, 1051). Tensions were heightened further because
of the fact that two influential figures who were engaged in the Air Force and WW2 played large
roles in the NASM, where Hap Arnold played an instrumental role in founding the museum,
Senator Barry Goldwater helped begin the museum construction, citing the need to celebrate
aviation’s achievements (1052). Furthermore, another exhibit relegated the WW1 air forces to a
secondary role and labeled the impact of aviation as limited and a failure. The lack of public
monuments and national memorials to air power and the air force in Washington, compared with
those for the army, navy, and Marines, further infuriated air force veterans. Within the military
aviation community, the Enola Gay was an icon, and the association’s campaign, from the
beginning, may have been to “‘embarrass the Smithsonian and force the resignation of Harwit”
so the museum would revert to a “strictly celebratory” orientation (1053).”
The argument for the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibit can be further connected to
the broader culture wars, where the campaign advocates for political correctness, which refers to
the practice of using respectful, identity-first, inclusive language to avoid offending,
marginalizing, or discriminating against historically disadvantaged groups. The advocates for
political correctness argue that it emphasizes social equality and empathy, and protects
vulnerable populations from microaggressions, while the critics argue that it could lead to
censorship, which would stifle civil discourse, limit freedom of speech, and punish honest
dialogue. Harwit responded to the Air Force Magazine by acknowledging the differing views and
perspectives of history, and hoped to defuse the criticism by changing the exhibit (1054). The
script was changed, but the changes could be seen as biased, as the museum began seeking out
ideas and knowledge from groups with political agendas and no claim to scholarly knowledge,
museum expertise, or a balanced perspective (1054). The museum would often consult, consider,
react to, and modify its products based on the best advice it could gather, which would often lead
to perspectives from groups that may view its past through a glorified lens of nostalgia (1054).
Harwit faced the challenge of appeasing both the scholarly curators and the veterans’ groups.
The initial exhibit, after greater amounts of alterations, had provoked several dozen historians
and writers who believed that the Smithsonian museum had caved in to censorship and
succumbed to "intellectual corruption,” leading them to categorize it as “mere propaganda”
caused by “historical cleansing (1055).” One of the authors believed that the museum was
abandoning “history with all its uncomfortable complications” in favor of “feel-good national
myths (1055).” The museum and Harwit had failed to satisfy the veterans and had alienated
many historians, leading many to question their credibility and lose trust in the Smithsonian. One
of the main points of contention was the number of casualties expected from a planned American
invasion, which would be a direct indication of whether the United States should have used the
atomic bombs. Kohn's belief that the point of contention was mired in a senseless contest, to an
extent, is valid, but it also fails to acknowledge the gravity of the topic. The museum leadership
didn’t realize that the exhibit could be canceled from the outside until it was too late.
The fourth element set up the stage for the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibit as a
patriotic cause. A general discontent with Clinton’s first two years of his presidential term,
alongside the rise in partisanship led by Republican Newt Gingrich that championed the Contract
with America, which was a unified legislative agenda that focused on tax cuts, welfare reform,
and term limits, led to a Republican victory in the 1994 congressional elections. The House of
Representatives had made the culture wars one of its central critiques and viewed the
cancellation of the exhibit as a necessary victory in order to reinstate the cultural Left in
American intellectual life. After the exhibition was canceled, and with Newt Gingrich as the new
House Speaker, he believed that the fight to cancel Enola Gay symbolized the reassertion that
most Americans opposed the cultural elite who were imposing their opinions of American
shamefulness on their fellow Americans. The left seemed to view the exhibition with strong
emotional significance and unambiguous opposition, as openly unpatriotic and against American
values.
The fifth element was the fact that the new Smithsonian secretary was unable or
unwilling to even contest the immense political pressure to cancel the exhibition. Immense
pressure had mounted from Congress and its own subscribers, and it had become heavily
dependent on federal support as private support dwindled. All of which led to the eventual
heeding of the American Legion's demands, which asked that the Enola Gay be transferred to
another museum for display in a positive context, and that the current one be canceled. Despite
Michael Heyman’s previous views, which hoped to defend “the independence of the Institution
from detailed political direction,” and endorsed the idea that the “strength of America is the
relative independence of its scholars from political pressures (1057).” While he had those initial
views, he began to distance himself from the exhibition, which isn’t necessarily invalid, but he
believed that the museum should include “the full range of communities which share the
American experience,” emphasizing the need for “context and interpretation” in exhibits and
ownership of controversial exhibits. He believed that Smithosinian’s role isn’t to solely affirm
the ‘good news’ and traditional patriotic values. Heyman goes on to emphasize that recognition
of both American heroism and the atomic bombs' consequences is important to their educational
purpose, and that multiple perspectives must be presented to avoid narrow viewpoints (1057).
Heyman, despite these views, had underestimated the discongruity between commemoration and
history, eventually leading him to conclude that the exhibition’s attempt to revise the script and
combine commemoration and historical analysis was a fundamental flaw and bound to fail
(1058). To further his predicament, 1995 was the 50th anniversary of the end of WW2, which
would’ve further alienated the veterans who weren’t hoping for an analysis and were instead
expecting the nation to honor and commemorate their valor and sacrifice. Harwit believed that
the cancellation of the exhibit would destroy the morale of Smithsonian curators and scholars
and limit educational opportunities, but Heyman and his Undersecretary dismissed Harwit’s
argument because they needed funding from Congress and private companies. The debate
became whether the Smithsonian is truly an independent institution expected to make its own
judgments, or if their actions aren’t able to be buffered from the influence of congressional
opinion, since many of its new initiatives require federal funding, and therefore congressional
approval. Heyman faced an awful decision. Either increase funding and secure Congressional
support, or alienate the National Air and Space Museum's efforts and lose true independence
from politics. Heyman’s decisions were met with criticism, as some individuals believed he was
downplaying history, which they saw as censorship. Heyman understood that his actions would
probably damage the Smithsonian’s reputation, call into question its scholarly integrity, and
could be viewed as political censorship, but to keep the institution alive and eliminate the
existential threat, he abandoned the exhibition to retain Congressional funding.
The article argues that history is a crucial part of human society and that it is the accurate
reconstruction of the past. Despite that, he notes that the temptation to rewrite history to favor a
particular outcome is often overwhelming. The Enola Gay exhibition seemed to discredit the
American honor associated with the WW2 victory, and therefore challenged the traditional
patriotism associated with it. Kohn believes that the United States government has used the
memory of war to construct the identity and to build the cohesion of the modern nation-state,
with memorializations of battles and wars shaping American cultural and political rituals. Kohn
mentions Harwit’s dilemma, which highlighted that commemorating veterans in an exhibition
was impossible because the exhibition is anti-war, anti-nuclear, and meant to emphasize the
reality of atomic war and its consequences (1062). Khon continues to believe that the
controversy highlights the fact that the American people “can tolerate honest history, that they
can detect biased or partisan interpretation, and that they recognize the necessity of independent
judgment and interpretation (1062).” A student of Japanese literature about the atomic bomb
wrote that “Americans’ ambivalence over Hiroshima and Japan’s ambivalence over its role in the
war, involve a common reluctance to think too carefully or long about anything that threatens the
national sense of legitimacy (1062).” John le Carre believes that the “fight against communism
diminished us,” leading to a falsely unified nation, where individuals, instead of being honest
and confronting their nation’s past, hold onto the sense of nationalism through secrecy. Kohn
views the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibition as a tragedy that would’ve been a major
opportunity to inform, and could’ve led to more reflection on the foolishness of racism and the
purpose of WW2.
Discussion Questions Draft
1.​ How does Khon's use of sources and his affiliation with the National Air and Space
Museum affect his perspective and opinions regarding the responses to political pressure
(1039, 1040)? Does he blame NASM and Smithsonian staff for succumbing to political
pressure or other forces that led to the cancellation? To what extent is his perspective
tainted due to his affiliation?
2.​ How did the 1994 congressional elections with Newt Gingrich and his Contract with
America approach the issue of commemoration and scholarship? Although
commemoration is important, does it seem that Newt Gingrich, by taking a position that
seems to oppose honest scholarship, aims to idealize and glorify American values? Can
honest discourse coincide with patriotism without contradicting each other? To what
extent were Gingrich’s efforts a continuation of the red-baiting initiatives of the New
Right, and to limit the progress of Black Americans?
3.​ To what extent is political correctness, the practice of inclusive language to avoid
offending, marginalizing, or discriminating against historically disadvantaged groups, a
form of censorship? Can political correctness simultaneously promote social equality and
avoid limiting honest discourse and freedom of speech? To what extent is the argument
against political correctness a conservative way of thinking?
4.​ How does the apparent political censorship of the Enola Gay exhibition compare to the
topic of Confederate monuments? Are the attempts at dismantling Confederate
monuments a form of censorship? Is the Enola Gay exhibition an exception to the idea of
commemoration and idealization over scholarship? How do WW2 veterans and political
influence that contributed to the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibition, which favors a
more idealized view that focuses on honor instead of a scholarly view based on the
consequences of the atomic bombs, compare to the removal of Confederate monuments,
which aims to rid the view of the idealized Lost Cause to a more scholarly view that
exposes its foundations of white supremacy and racism? Do these simultaneous actions
contradict each other?
5.​ To what extent does the memorialization of war and battles shape American culture, and
how do Americans perceive war? Would the Enola Gay exhibition cast doubt on WW2
honor and disrupt the patriotic status quo? How much does American patriotism
contribute to American identity, and how much does the Enola Gay exhibition challenge
that identity if it challenges patriotism? Do challenging topics of mixed interpretations
and feelings raise a common reluctance to confront the topic in order to preserve the
national sense of legitimacy, and therefore identity (1062)? Did the fight against
communism lead the American people to unite under a false identity through secrecy
instead of honesty (1062)? Is the cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibition an example of
that? To what extent is the temptation or reality of rewriting and idealizing WW2 history
compared to idealizing the history of the Confederacy (1060)?
6.​ How does the presentation of 9/11 as innocent American victims versus evil outsiders
bolster national identity? How does this compare to the idealization that came out of the
cancellation of the Enola Gay exhibition? To what extent is it the museum’s job to make
events more approachable and simplistic by withholding information that would
challenge American values and identity? How does political influence affect the
perceptions of American identity, and does avoidance of confrontation perpetuate
idealistic beliefs?