Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - Participants and Their First Draft of History

  • Kenneth B. Pyle, University of Washington
  • Book:
    Hiroshima and the Historians
    Published online:
    30 May 2024
    Print publication:
    06 June 2024, pp 61-90

  • Summary

    Makers of history want historians to treat them favorably. Those who wield power often wish to influence the way in which history will view them. They are concerned about securing their place in history. This chapter explores how participants in the decision to use the bomb, provoked by criticism and worried about how historians would treat them, explained and justified their decision. The impact of John Hersey’s bestselling Hiroshima and other writing critical of the use of the bomb deeply troubled participants in the decision. They instigated Henry Stimson’s Harper’s 1947 article “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” which defended the decision as necessary to avoid an invasion, bring the war to an early end, and save American and Japanese lives. Despite its shortcomings, Stimson’s defense stood for two decades as the largely unchallenged interpretation of the use of the bomb and became the foundation of the “orthodox interpretation” which still remains a widely held view.