In the wake of the fireball: Hiroshima after the fire-storms, what might it mean?

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Why Truman Dropped the Bomb
From the August 8, 2005 issue: Sixty years after Hiroshima, we now have the secret intercepts that shaped his decision.
BY Richard B. Frank : military historian

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

This is a very good free read even though some will say it is in the Weekly Standard

''The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion. The Japanese called this strategy Ketsu Go (Operation Decisive). It was founded on the premise that American morale was brittle and could be shattered by heavy losses in the initial invasion.''

''The Japanese did not see their situation as catastrophically hopeless. They were not seeking to surrender, but pursuing a negotiated end to the war that preserved the old order in Japan, not just a figurehead emperor. Finally, thanks to radio intelligence, American leaders, far from knowing that peace was at hand, understood--as one analytical piece in the "Magic" Far East Summary stated in July 1945, after a review of both the military and diplomatic intercepts--that "until the Japanese leaders realize that an invasion can not be repelled, there is little likelihood that they will accept any peace terms satisfactory to the Allies." This cannot be improved upon as a succinct and accurate summary of the military and diplomatic realities of the summer of 1945.''

 

[Asher Kelman]

Just do not poison your mind with the writings of Alperovitz

Don,

You give me to much credit for possibly reading them! Of course, one can absorb the same line of ideas as a meme which as part of a cultural infection of yesterdays ideas with new one's that compete just as an Africanized honey bee might spread North in the USA, replacing the more humble bumble.

What constitutes "Revisionism"? Is it anything other than direct tactical value of using the bombs to secure a Japanese change of mind and surrender.

I wonder whether other, unrelated by likely existing strategic goals, (such as taming the advance Russian bear), might have been in the minds of Truman and his advisors. After all, why would anyone want to put that in writing? To use a weapon of that magnitude would obviously has significance to the Russians. That it may not have been written about in the same context as dropping the bombs on Japan is hardly surprising. Of course, that doesn't mean that brandishing one's weapons over the Russians as a show of immense strength was the decisive factor, but it does not rule it out of the balance.

Asher

 

[Don Ferguson Jr.]

Don,

You give me to much credit for possibly reading them! Of course, one can absorb the same line of ideas as a meme which as part of a cultural infection of yesterdays ideas with new one's that compete just as an Africanized honey bee might spread North in the USA, replacing the more humble bumble.

What constitutes "Revisionism"? Is it anything other than direct tactical value of using the bombs to secure a Japanese change of mind and surrender.

I wonder whether other, unrelated by likely existing strategic goals, (such as taming the advance Russian bear), might have been in the minds of Truman and his advisors. After all, why would anyone want to put that in writing? To use a weapon of that magnitude would obviously has significance to the Russians. That it may not have been written about in the same context as dropping the bombs on Japan is hardly surprising. Of course, that doesn't mean that brandishing one's weapons over the Russians as a show of immense strength was the decisive factor, but it does not rule it out of the balance.

Asher

This cut and paste describes it very well and I know I take from Frank a lot but he explains your question in better concise terms than I ever could
Don

''In 1945, an overwhelming majority of Americans regarded as a matter of course that the United States had used atomic bombs to end the Pacific war. They further believed that those bombs had actually ended the war and saved countless lives. This set of beliefs is now sometimes labeled by academic historians the "traditionalist" view. One unkindly dubbed it the "patriotic orthodoxy."

But in the 1960s, what were previously modest and scattered challenges of the decision to use the bombs began to crystallize into a rival canon. The challengers were branded "revisionists," but this is inapt. Any historian who gains possession of significant new evidence has a duty to revise his appreciation of the relevant events. These challengers are better termed critics.

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation. The critics divide over what prompted the decision to drop the bombs in spite of the impending surrender, with the most provocative arguments focusing on Washington's desire to intimidate the Kremlin. Among an important stratum of American society--and still more perhaps abroad--the critics' interpretation displaced the traditionalist view.''

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/894mnyyl.asp

 

[Asher Kelman]

Thanks Don for getting the nomenclature right. So people who would still, today, support the original "patriotic" view would then become "apologists". Not for making an apology in colloquial meaning, but rather as "defenders of the faith"

I wonder if there are bodies of art/photography that also fall into the patriotic, (apologist) views and the subsequent or critical views which disassembles those beliefs?