Peering through Different Bombsights: Military Historians, Diplomatic Historians, and the Decision to Drop the Atomic Bomb

摘要

For 51 years, questions surrounding the use of the atomic bomb have prompted extensive inquiry. Various authors, working from essentially the same historical record, continue to reach dramatically different conclusions. Those dubbed 'revisionists' reject the notion that the bombings were necessary, while others support an 'official' endorsement of the attacks to limit Allied casualties and secure Japanese surrender. In recent years, the revisionists have maintained an upper hand in the debate. They seem possessed of an inherent advantage, in that traditionalists are wedded to one conclusion, while the revisionists can offer various hypotheses as to the underlying reasons behind President Harry Truman's decision. Their ability to claim discovery of the 'truth' behind the bombings, be it 'atomic diplomacy,' racism, scientific curiosity, cost justification, or whatever, constitutes a powerful advantage in both attracting publishers and selling copies. Their opponents are commonly relegated to voicing their opinions in articles or within the context of manuscripts on earlier campaigns, hypothetical invasions, or other Pacific-war themes. The relative success of the revisionists can be measured by surveys which show that many Americans now disagree with Truman's judgement.