Education About Asia: Online Archives

Historical Inquiry and the Public Memory

Back to search results
Download PDF

With the the controversy created by the Enola Gay exhibit at the Smithsonian illustrated the deep division between the public memory and prevailing patterns of historical scholarship. New levels of inquiry suggest ways in which those of us who teach about the bomb might try to bridge the gap.

PUBLIC MEMORY was initially framed by two early publications.1 In August 1946. John Hersey’s New. Yorker article (arid sub­sequent book) forced Americans to think about the role that nuclear weapons should play in postwar U.S. foreign policy. Even a hostile commentator. William Buckley, Jr., later conceded that Hersey’s writings offered “both a spiritual acknowledgment of the transcendent magnitude of the event. and an invitation to analytical mediation on its implications.”2 If Hersey’s writing set the precedent for the image of Hiroshima as an anti-nuclear symboL then the work of Truman’s secretary °Nor Henry Stimson. first in a 1947 Atlantic article and then in his lengthier memoirs. served as the first illustrzu ion (lithe other role to be played by Hiroshima in the American public. memory. Prodded by James Conant. who feared the effects of a wide­spread public questioning of Iranian’s decision. Stimson justified the use of the bomb as the only alter­native to an invasion which would have yielded as many as half a million Ameri­can casualties, a vastly inflated figure which nonetheless quickly become part of the public consciousness on the issue.3

Although not quite so polarised. the earliest academic work on the decision to drop the bomb paralleled these alternative visions, in 1961. Herbert Fels’ Japan Subdued east Truman’s central aim as a military one: ending the war in the Racine us soon as possible with the minimum loss of American lives.4 From the other side, Gar Alperovitis Atomic niplosmicy. lirst published in 1 %5, stressed the diplomatic. not military. reasons behind the dropping [lithe bomb, In his view. President Truman deliberately prolonged the war so that he could intimidate the Soviet Union by drop­ping the bomb.5

While Alperovitz’s hook l recently up-dated and republished) has naturally been contentious. most historians now accept Barton Bernstein’s conlenlion that a hope that the bomb might intimidate the Soviets served as a “bonus:” not the primary reason. for Truman’s decision to use the bomb. Bernstein also has asked historians to view Truman’s decision in light of accepted standards of morality and warfare at the time, noting that no reason existed for policymakers in the Truman administration to look for such alternatives to the dropping of the bomb as a non-combat demonstration. modifying the U.S. demand that Japan surrender unconditionally so as to permit the retention of the Emperor system, pursuing Japan’s peace feelers inure diligently, delaying the use of the bomb until after the Soviet entry into the Pacific war, or relying on heavy non-atomic bombing and a naval blockade of Japan. Finally. Bernstein also made the important historical finding that, contrary to claims offered by Truman and his secretary of war_ Henry Stimson. in their mem­oirs that U.S. deaths from an invasion of Japan might have totaled as many as half a million men, policymakers at the time had access to figures which listed a far lower likely figure, some­where around 25,000 men, Bernstein’s work, and that of similarly minded historians, served to modify the extreme claims associated with the two earlier interpretations of Hiroshima.6

That the orthodox school once associated with Fels had all but ceased to exist was implicitly con­firmed when Stimson’s former aide. McGeorge Bundy. conceded that American policymakers “were full of hope that the bomb would put new strength into the American power position” when conduct­ing diplomacy after the war. Building on the earlier work of Michael Sherry. he also explicitly addressed the critics—in both the scholarly community and among the pub­lic at large—who characterized Hiroshima and Nagasaki as immoral acts, stressing the role played by strategic bombing campaigns directed against civilian targets in chang­ing the accepted view of morality in warfare. indeed, Bundy claimed, “of all the changes in warmaking brought by experi­ence and felt necessary in World War II. none is more remarkable than that which reversed both official and public attitudes toward the area bombing of cities.” He correctly noted that most of the moral arguments directed against atomic weapons worked as well against the use of incendi­ary devices against civilian targets, which had become accepted Air Force practice by late 1944 and received strong support among the American public.7

“Public opinion on Truman’s decision to drop the bomb has become much more polarized in the last fifteen years. “

In short. most diplomatic historians now realize that alternalives to using the bomb were recognized at the time, and that political as well as military factors thus influenced President Truinan’s decision. Recent scholarship on the overall foreign policies of Roosevelt and Truman has tended to reinforce this general view of two administrations for which geopolitical con­cerns played a key role in shaping the approach of top policymakers in retrospect, it would be startling if policymakers in the United States, clearly the most powerful nation in the world in 1945, had not considered the political and diplomatic ramifications of such an important decision as dropping atomic weapons on Japan.8

In sharp contrast to the trend within the scholarly community. however, public opinion on Truman’s decision to drop the bomb has become much more polarized in the last fifteen years. Paul Boyer recently has commented on how the Hersey and Stimson works helped “position Hiroshima at the core of the debate over nuclear weapons—past, present. and future, They also estab­lished a pattern. which has become especially pronounced in the last fifteen years, in which contemporary intellectual and diplomatic developments shaped the public memory of Hiroshima to a far greater degree than historical scholarship on the event. For most of the Reagan administration, the anti-nuclear interpretation of Hiroshima associated with Hersey’s work dominated. Memories of Hiroshima attracted prominent atten­tion fr()111 nuclear freeze activists looking to heighten public attention of the possi­bly perilous effects or Reagan’s military buildup. Although the anti-nuclear inter­pretation of Hiroshima generally did not entail an attack on the scholarly commu­nity. it nonetheless focused on a very different sort of questions than those posed by most scholars, since it concen­trated more on ethical judgments about the use of the atomic bomb than attempt­ing to explain the reasons for Truman acting as he did.9

As the threat of nuclear war has faded and public confidence in an assertive American policy has increased, public at­tention has focused less on the morality of Truman’s decision and more on Stimson’s positioning of Hiroshima as the alternative to a large-scale invasion of Japan and thus the savior of American lives. The starkest example of this point of came in Paul Fussell’s 1981 article., which praised Truman’s decision from the perspec­tive of an American soldier and also condemned what Fussell termed the “revisionist” scholars who did not live during the era for making jukments on Truman’s policy. This perspective appeared in a slightly more restrained fashion in David McCullough’s popular biography of Truman, which likewise defended the President’s action as the only alternative to a large-scale invasion which might have produced up to 500.000 Ameri­can casualties. Changes in both U.S. domestic politics and the American role in international affairs have intensified the pub­lic strength of this nationalist position. The emergence of eco­nomic issues as a key element of diplomacy and the burgeoning trade deficit with Japan made Tokyo seem more like a rival than a friend, while the security aspect of the relationship. sin impor­tant in minimizing friction throughout the Cold War. seemed less important in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR.10 One can imagine a very different American response had the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima occurred in the international climate of a decade be­fore, when criticism of Japari in the United States tended to he muted under the broader concern of maintaining a united front in the Pacific. Meanwhile. the anti-Washington attitude recently evident in Congress and. Tony Capaccio and lJday Mohan argue. the mishandling of the issue by the media have only increased the public’s sense that the United States was right to drop the bomb.11

” .. scholarly history is not the same thing as public memory, certainly not in a society where freedom of inquiry exists.”

What then, are we teachers to do? As Akira Iriye reminds us, “scholarly history is not the same thing as public memory. certainly not in a society where freedom of inquiry exists. Historians. lriye recom­mends. need to maintain their integrity by producing works which reinvestigate. the past constantly in light of new evidence and frameworks of analysis.” Ways do exist For historians to influence the shaping of the public memory while maintaining high levels of scholarly inquiry. New methods currently prominent in the field of U.S. for­eign relations, for example, can address the concerns that form the core of the public discourse on the decision to use the bomb while still focusing on a scholarly approach. Two of the most fruitful recent liues of inquiry in diplomatic history have cen­tered on examining the interaction between domestic politics and foreign policy, and approachina American foreign policy as part of international history. Recent scholarship has utilized these general approaches while again moving away from the extremes associated with the public memory of the issue.12

For example, since any discussion of the question of whether the dropping of the bomb brought the war to a close needs to incorporate both the American and the Japanese perspectives, the international approach offers an obvious avenue for address­ing the impact of Truman’s decisiorL Too much of the historiog­raphy. however, especially that of the revisionist variety f along with virtually all aspects of public commentary on the issue), has dealt with only the American side of the equation. As lan Burunia points Dm, Alperovitz, for one, has implicitly assumed that “it was clear the Japanese would have surrendered with such a guarantee” of retaining the Emperor system. even though there is no evidence that Japan would have surrendered, even with a guarantee of the Emperor’s status. and there are good reasons to believe that it would not,- Indeed_ Japanese leaders seemed as little concerned with saving Japanese Lives as did Truman.13 Herbert Bix has also at¬tempted to redress some of the imbalances in Alperovitz’s account (and those of most other American scholars).

Akira Iriye delved into this issue over a decade ago in Power und Culture, where he offered a good deal of evidence on the weakness of the peace forces within the Japanese government. Bix applied Iriye’s general framework to the atomic bomb decision. Contending that the Emperor played a critical role in the Formation of Japanese wartime policy, that he had little interest in an early peace. and that the so-called “moderates- within the Japanese cabinet were of a similar mindset, Bix concluded that a U.S. guarantee to retain the Emperor system would not have in¬duced a Japanese surrender. Like Ba rum a. he also minimized the influence of those promoting the peace overtures within the Japanese government. Looking to assess the American unwillingness to compromise on the policy of unconditional surrender in light of the tremendous sacrifices that the Emperor kept imposing on his people,” Bix sees “many other reasons for the delayed surrender beyond American policymakers’ desire to practice atomic diplomacy. or realize ulterior objectives vis-a-vis the Soviet Union.14

Lawrence Witmer utilized an international lens in a different fashion in his ambitious new hook on the international implica-tions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One World or None examines how the use of the bomb provoked a rethinking of the nature of international relations by contributing to the rise of world federalist movements in not only Japan but in the United States as well. While world federalism never assumed the predomi­nant position in U.S. policy. Wittner shows that it had more impact than generally has been perceived. In particular. what he terms an “unprecedented receptivity to new approaches to world order. manifested itself in the Acheson-Lilienthal Plan to place all atomic weapons under international control. Winner’s book maintains high levels of scholarly inquiry while nonetheless offering insights on how Hiroshima affected perspectives on international affairs that transcended national boundaries. By continuing to examine the use of the bomb through an international  lens, historians ask the types of questions that promise to move the atomic bomb debate beyond the narrow confines of the 1994-1995 controversy. To what extent the public will be willing to engage in this type of examination, of course, remains to be seen. But it does offer a potential path toward a new type of public memory on the issue.15

“While a gap always will exist between historical inquiry and the public memory, ways exist for historians to narrow the divide.”

Examining in greater detail the intersec­tion between domestic forces—such as contemporary press opinion or the role played by scientists—and Truman’s action also offers a promising way for historians to ask historically oriented questions that nonetheless address the issues which most concern the public memory on the issue. The role played by Congress represents one aspect of the domestic equation which de­serves more attention, particularly in light of the prominent role played by Congress (especially through the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy) in postwar nuclear policy.16

Meanwhile, Alan Brinkley’s recent work has indicated how growing congressional conservatism during World War 11 con­strained the domestic agenda of Franklin Roosevelt, and it is only reasonable to assume that a desire to ward off legislative attacks affected the decision making processes of Truman. himself a creature of Congress. Indeed, as Stanley Goldberg has recently commented. fear of a possible congressional invasion caused General Leslie Groves, the director of the Manhattan Project. to take “all steps possible to make sure that the atomic bomb played a role in bringing the war to an end. Throughout the war. Groves placed the appropriations for the Manhattan Project in the budget for the Army Corps of Engineers, helping to hide from Congress the fact that an item originally estimated at $133 million wound up costing over 52 billion to produce. Yet he knew that the secrecy would not last forever: Stimson and Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson joked near the end of the war that if the project did not suc­ceed, they would spend the rest of their lives testifying before Congress. Secre­tary of State James Byrnes. meanwhile, worried about how such an inquiry would affect the political well-being of the Democratic party. What part the fear of the congressional repercussions of not using the bomb played in the bureaucratic events leading up to Truman’s decision remains a matter of debate, but, as sev­eral historians have pointed out. the President’s advisors framed the choice to maximize the chances of Truman’s deciding to go ahead with Hiroshima. As Groves remarked later, the bomb’s success ensured that “we will never have the greatest congressional investigation of all times.17

While a gap always will exist between historical inquiry and the public memory, ways exist for historians to narrow the divide. Looking more at domestic events both in Japan and the United States offers a way for historians to ask far more complicated questions. and, hope­fully, yield findings which have the potential for affecting public discourse on the issue.

NOTES


1. For the development of the historiography. see Barton Bernstein. “The Atomic Bomb and American Foreign Policy. 1941-1945: An Historiographical Controversy,” Peace and Change 3 (1974): 1-14;.1. Samuel Walker, “The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update.” Diplomatic History 14 (1990): 97-114.

2. Paul Boyer. “Hiroshima in American Memory: Diplomatic History 19 (19951: 303.

3. J, Samuel Walker. “History. Collective Memory and the Decision to Use the Bomb,” Diplomatic History 19 11995): 319: Bernstein. Seizing the Contested Terrain of Early Nuclear History.” Diplomatic History). 17 (19931: 58-59: Henry Samson and McGeorge Bundy. On &lire Service in Peace Wrilnr (NeWlit; Harper, 1948); Johns Hersey. “Hiroshima. New Yorker ? August 1946): for the background to public images about the bomb. see Paul Boyer, By the Smooch’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of theAtorrucAge New York: Pantheon, 19851: and idem. “Exotic Resonances: Hiroshima in American Memory.”‘ Diplomatic Histon. 19 ( l995): 275­-296.

4. Herbert Feis, Japan Sithdtted: The Mamie Bomb and the End of the War in the Pacific (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1961): for Feis’ earlier work on the origins of the Cold War, see Roosevelt. Chorchill, and Stalin: The Weir They Waged and the Peace They Sought ( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1957).

5. Gar A Iperovitz. Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1965): for pathbreaking works of the Wisconsin School in their challenge to Feis’ orthodox interpretation of the Cold War, see William Applernan Williams. The Tragedy of American Diplomacy (Cleveland: Globe Publishing. 1959). and Walter LaFeber, America, Russia, and the Cold War, 1945-1966 (New York: Wiley, 1967).

6. Robert James Maddox. “Atomic Diplomacy: A Study in Creative Writing.” Journal of American History 59 (1973): 925-934: Barton Bernstein, “Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modem Memory,” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 227-273; ideal, “Roosevelt. Truman, and the Atomic Bomb: A Reinrcrpremtion,” Politic Science Quarterly 90 (1975): 23-69; “Truman at Potsdam: His Secret Diary,” Foreign Service Journal 57 (1980): 29-36 “A Postwar Myth: 500.,(X)0 Lives Saved.” Bulletin of the Airtnnic Scientists 42 (1986): 38-40; and “Seizing the Contested Terrain of Early Nuclear History: Stiroson. Conant, and their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” Diplomatic History 17 (1993); Rufus Miles, Jr., “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved,” International Security. 10 (1985): 121-140: for the other key work representing this point of ‘view. see Martin Sherwin. A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1975): for more on Alperovitz’s central role in shaping the historiographical debate, see Walker. “The Decision to Use the Bomb.”Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 98-101.

7. McGeorge Bundy. Danger mid Survival Choices About the Bomb (New York. 1988): 48. 55; Michael Sherry. The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon New Haven, Tate University Press, l987): see also Ronald Schaffer, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing inWorld War II (New York: Oxford University Press, 19851; for revisionist challenges, see Our A Iperovitz. The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Construction of An American Myth (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995): idem, Atomic Diplomacy: Hiakshinta and Potsdam, rev_ ed_ (New, York: Simon and Schuster. 19851; idem, and Robert Messer, “Marshall, Truman, and the Decision to Drop the Bomb.” International Security 16 (1991/1992): 204­

8. Gabriel Kolko, The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy 1943-1945 (New York: Random House, 1968): Rotten Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press. 1979); Melvyn Leffler. A Preponder­once of Power: National Security, the Truman Adwiniartoion, and the Cold War (Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1992).

9. Boyer. “Exotic Resonances,” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): Bernstein, “Understanding the Atomic Bomb. Diplomatic History (1995): 228.

10. Boyer. “Exotic Resonances,” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 314: Paul Fussell. “Hiroshima: A Soldier’s View,” New Republic 22 (August 29. 1981): 26-30. Reprint. Thank God for the Atomic Bomb and Other Essays (New York: Random House, 1988); David McCullough. Trunion (New York: Simon and Schuster. 1992); Walker. “History, Collective Memory, and the Decision to Use the Bomb,” Diplomatic History  19 ( 1995 ); 320.

11. On the difficulties confronted by historians with the Ennio Gay exhibit, see Torts Capaccio and Uday Mohan, “Missing the Target: How the Media Mishandled the Smithsonian Enola Gay Controversy.” American Journalism Review 15 (July/Aug. 1995): 20.

12. Akira lriye. “Historical Scholarship and Public Memory.” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 4 (1995): 92: Fur the background to the debate within the diplomatic history community, see Michael’s “The Long Crisis ins U.S. Diplomatic History: Coming to Closure.” Diplomatic History 16 (1992): 115-140; Hogan and Thomas Paterson. eds., Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations (New York: Cambridge University Press. 1991).

13. Ian Buruma. “The War Over the Bomb.” New York Review of Rooks 33 (September 1995).

14. Akira lriye. Power and Culture (Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1981): Herbert Bix. “Japan’s Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpreta­tion,” Diplomatic History 19 (1915): I97-226; see also Leon Sigal, Fighting to a Finish: The Politics of War Termination in the United States and Japan, 1945 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988).

15. Lawrence Whiner, One World or None: A History of Nuclear Disarmament movement through 1953 (Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1993): the quotation is from p.318.

16. Uday Mohan and Sanho Tree. “Hiroshima. the American Media, and the Construction of Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 4 (1995 ): 141-160.

17. Alan Brinkley, The End of Reform(New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1995): James Hersheberg. James B Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Atomic Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf. 1993); Stanley Goldberg. “Racing to the Finish: The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Journal of American-East Asian Rekaions 4 11995): 117-128.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Alperovitz. Gar. Atomic Diphimacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1965.

Bernstein. Barton. “The Atomic Bomb and American Foreign Policy. 1941-1945: An Historiographical Controversy.” Peace and Change 3 (1974): 1-14.

____ .”A Postwar Myth: 500.000 Lives Saved.” Bulletin of the Attenie Scientists 42 (1986): 38-40.

____ .”Roosevelt. Truman. and the Atomic Bomb: A Reinterpretation.” Political Science Quarterly 90 (1975): 23-69.

____ . “Seizing the Contested Terrain of Early Nuclear History: Stimson. Conant. and Their Allies Explain the Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” Diplomatic History 17 (1993): 55-78.

____ . “Truman at Potsdam: His Secret Diary,” Foreign Service Journal 57 (1980): 29-36.

____ . “Understanding the Atomic Bomb and the Japanese Surrender: Missed Opportunities. Little-Known Near Disasters, and Modem Memory.” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 227­-273.

Bix. Herbert. “Japan’s Delayed Surrender: A Reinterpretation:” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 197-226.

Boyer. Paul. By the Bomb’s Early Light American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age. New York: Pantheon, 1985.

____  “Exotic Resonances: Hiroshima in American Memory.” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 275-296.

____ . “Hiroshima in American Memory.”Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 303. Brinkley. Alan. The End of Relinm. New York: Knopf. 1995.

Bundy. McGeorge. Danger and Survival: Choices About the Bomb. New York: Random House. 1988.

Buruma. Ian . “The War Over the Bomb.” Nen, York Review of Books 33 (September 1995): 21. Capaccin. Tony, and Way Mohan. “Missing the Target: How the Media Mishandled the Smithsonian Enola Gay Controversy.” American Journalism Review 15 (1995 ): 17-23.

Feis. Herbert. Japan Subdued: The Atomic Bomb and the End of the War in the Pacific. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961.

_____  Romereh, Churchill. and Stalin: The War They Waged and The Peace They Sought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1957.

Goldberg. Stanley. “Racing to the Finish: The Decision to Bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 4 (1995): 117-128.

Hersey. John. “Hiroshima.” New Yorker (August 1946).

Hershberg, James. James B. Conant, Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Atomic Age. New York: Knopf. 1993.

Hogan, Michael. and Thomas Paterson. eds. Explaining the History of American Foreign Relations. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1991.

Hunt. Michael. “The Long Crisis in U.S. Diplomatic History: Coming to Closure.” Diplomatic. History 16 (1992): 115-140.

Iriye. Akira. “Historical Scholarship and Public Memory:” Journal of American-East Asian Relations 4 (1995): 87-92.

_____ . Power and Cullafe: The Japanese-American War. 1941-1945. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 1981.

Kolko. Gabriel. The Politics of War: The World and United States Foreign Policy 1943-1954. New York: Random House. 1968.

LaFeber. Walter. America, Russia, and the Cold War 1945-1966. New York: Wiley. 1967.

Leffler. Melvyn. A Preponderance of Power: National Security; the Truman Administration. and the Cold War. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1992.

Maddox. Robert James. “Atomic Diplomacy: A Study in Creative Writing.”Journal of American History 59 (1973): 925-934.

McCullough. David. Truman. New York: Simon and Schuster. 1992.

Miles. Rufus. Jr. “Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million American Lives Saved.” Internatienud Security 10 (1985 ): 121-140.

Mohan. Uday. and Sanho Tree. “Hiroshima, the American Media. and the Construction of Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of American­ East Asian Relations 4 (1993): 141- 160.

Schaffer, Ronald. Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II. New York: Oxford University Press. 1985.

Sherri. Michael. The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Annagedihm. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987.

Sherwin. Martin. A World Destroyed: The Atomic Bomb and the Grand Alliance. New York: Knopf. 1975.

Sigal. Leon. Fighting to a Finish: The Politic of  War Termination in the United States and Japan. 1945. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. 1988.

Stimson. Henry. and McGeorge Bundy. On Active Service in Peace and War. New York: Harper. 1948.

Walker, J. Samuel. “The Decision to Use the Bomb: A Historiographical Update.” Diplomatic History 14 (1990): 97-114.

_____ .“History. Collective Memory. and the Decision to Use the Bomb.” Diplomatic History 19 (1995): 319-328.

Winner, Lawrence. One World or None: A History of the Nuclear Disarmament Movement Through 1951 Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993.