Read on Twitter
This is a great question from @AtomicAnalyst. People will STRENUOUSLY object to anyone challenging what is — by any definition — a form of propaganda that the people who dropped the bomb developed in 1945-1947, even though they will readily admit they've never researched it. Why? https://twitter.com/AtomicAnalyst/status/1160013072007872512
On the propaganda side: most of what people think of as a the "default" or "orthodox" version of the atomic bomb history was deliberately created by people who worked on it, to counter the many objections that started to rise in their own time.
Henry Stimson's article for Harper's Magazine, "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb," was maybe the ultimate version of this. It was largely written by General Groves, Stimson, and had input from James Conant — all major figures in the bomb program.
Why write such a thing? Because people in the US and abroad were getting a little queasy about the use of the bomb. Major military figures in the US were saying it had been unnecessary (including Gen. Eisenhower, Adm. Leahy, and others). http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm
There was also a new argument rising in popularity that the US had dropped the bombs not to end the war, but to scare the USSR and flex its muscle. That's right: this article is not a revisionism of the 1980s, but was first being made in the 1940s!
Now I'm not saying these arguments were right. (Though I do find it interesting that anyone accusing modern historians of "Monday morning quarterbacking" are really accusing people like Eisenhower, MacArthur, and Leahy of it, too.) They're not, not entirely.
But neither is the Stimson/Truman/Groves "decision to use the bomb" narrative, either, which was molded to counter them, and make the use of the bomb look more carefully-weighed and planned-out than it was. Reality is more complex than this. Nobody can predict the future. Etc.
But today (thanks in part to the Culture Wars of the 1990s) I find a significant segment of people (esp. Americans) will fight against any additional complexity, or alternative interpretation, of the atomic bombs as "revisionism," and cling to the propaganda version tightly.
When I teach this to students, I lay out several of these narratives (the "orthodox," the various "revisionists," etc.) and then explain why they all do have some aspects that are correct, and some aspects that are wrong. No single argument encapsulates all of it.
Most serious historians of the bomb today ascribe to a "synthetic" narrative that combines the best parts of all of this accounts, plus what we've learned from new documents released in the US, Japan, and former USSR in the last 20-30 years.
The result is a story that doesn't really make ANYONE happy a lot of the time. The anti-bomb people would like it to be a stronger argument about the avoidability of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It's not that. The pro-bomb people resent any deviation from the orthodox narrative.
So I'm amusing accused of pleasing nobody a lot of the time. And you know that: THAT'S OKAY. My job as a historian is not to give you a story that easily fits into your present-day political opinions. It is not to make you comfortable. History is not comforting. :-)
As for the specific reason why people think the "orthodox" one is most correct: 1. it's what they were taught when young, and people tend to make such views "default"; 2. our culture reinforces it a million ways (History Channel, etc.); and...
3. people seem really drawn to the "we weighed this terrible decision but had to do it" narrative. There's a triumphant/tragic nature to it that makes for good drama. That the reality was far more unconsidered and chaotic and even arbitrary at times is disappointing.
One cannot really underestimate the importance of "narrative" in the understanding and writing of history. One can't avoid it, either (there is no "non-narrative history," despite the occasional claims of misguided philosophers). People don't understand history as just facts.
We use historical narratives to make sense of ourselves, our nations, our shared culture. That's why history can be controversial and scary. The history of the atomic bomb is definitely "contested" for this reason: it's read as a moral story about the USA, Japan, etc.
You can see this so plainly in the angry responses. They're about the contested morality of Japan, the USA, those leaders, those scientists. Some people rejoice in finding the US "immoral," some reject it. Some think the immorality of Japan counters any immorality of the US, etc.
I get all that. Don't worry folks — I don't take your angry rejections personally... even if you wished I would! I see them as further data points in understanding the popular understanding of the atomic bomb. Again, my job isn't to make you happy. Sorry! :-)
And I wonder: as we get further away from the actual "living memory" of the bomb—as the last survivors and veterans pass, as their children grow old and pass themselves, etc.—will we get more or less attached to certain narratives? I don't know. But it'll be interesting to see.
