Why Americans Have Been Duped over the Use of the Atomic Bomb
In truth, the actual estimate of likely casualties of a land invasion, drawn up by the Joint Chiefs in a meeting with Truman in July 1945, was 31,000. The count was later lifted to between 60,000-90,000, nowhere near the post-war estimate of up to one million, which can now be seen for what it was: a post-facto justification for the bomb, conjured by Washington out of thin air, to ease Americas troubled conscience.
The Harpers article also claimed, wrongly, that the atomic bombs had forced Japan to unconditional surrender. While the bombs obviously contributed to Japans general sense of defeat, not a shred of evidence supports the contention that the Japanese leadership surrendered in direct response to the atomic attacks. On the contrary, when they heard of the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japans hardline militarists shrugged off the news - that a special bomb had destroyed two more cities - and vowed to continue fighting.
If you disbelieve this, read the Minutes of the epic meetings of the samurai leadership in August 1945. The Big Six, the ministers who ran Japan from a bunker beneath Tokyo at the time, barely acknowledged Nagasakis destruction when a messenger arrived with the news on 9th August. The messenger, who had interrupted their meeting to discuss Russias invasion of Japanese occupied territory the day before, was abruptly dismissed. The loss of another city of civilians was hardly of interest. In fact, state propaganda responded to Hiroshima and Nagasaki by girding the nation for a continuing war against a nuclear-armed America.
Full article: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157392
azmom
(5,208 posts)Lies, after lies, after lies.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)The Stimson article has never been accepted at face value except by propagandists. And Ham did do extensive research on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
azmom
(5,208 posts)What I can't believe is that I have never questioned this part of history, but it makes sense that America had to justify using the bomb. The history books used in schools need to be burned. I tried to supplement my child's education with library books so she had a better understanding of history, but it wasn't easy. I keep reading and keep learning.
Thank you for the post.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)I will say that you shouldn't necessarily take Paul Ham at face value either. He's fairly well respected as a journalist and amateur historian in Australia, but I just don't know enough about this particular topic to say whether or not he's correct in his interpretation of the facts. Plus since he's essentially digesting his book for this article, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he's left out a lot of nuance.
Despite how conservatives (and Paul Ham!) use the term, revisionism isn't a dirty word in historiography. Rather it's how history works.