History and Revisionism
I recently read the article: Recent Literature on Truman's Atomic Bomb Decision: A Search for Middle Ground by J. Samuel Walker.
This was after a discussion with a friend where I questioned why my whole generation was educated to believe a specific historical story about the bombing when in reality there is no consensus on the issue. This was referring to the story that the US dropped the bombs because the only alternative was a land invasion which would result in a huge loss of life.
The article reads almost like a list. A bunch of historians arguing with each other about the numbers involved with a land invasion, what Truman was aware of, whether the Japanese would have surrendered quickly even without the bombs and other topics. Each historian criticizing the others for ignoring aspects of evidence and overstating other aspects. They fit into 3 broad camps, the traditional view which is stated above, the revisionist view which is sceptical of the traditional one and thinks there were alternative reasons for dropping the bombs and also the middle view which stands somewhere between them.
Anyway that's all pretty much irrelevant.
The question is what do I do with this? Here I have a whole host of historians disagreeing with each other. I'm not so much asking what the ontological status of history is as what attitude to take towards it. The easiest thing to do would be to remain sceptical of all views, but that seems like a cop out.
I'm sure people will take the opportunity to write their own opinions of the bombing, which is fine and interesting in itself. I'm more interested in a general attitude towards historical events, especially ones which involve so much contention.
This was after a discussion with a friend where I questioned why my whole generation was educated to believe a specific historical story about the bombing when in reality there is no consensus on the issue. This was referring to the story that the US dropped the bombs because the only alternative was a land invasion which would result in a huge loss of life.
The article reads almost like a list. A bunch of historians arguing with each other about the numbers involved with a land invasion, what Truman was aware of, whether the Japanese would have surrendered quickly even without the bombs and other topics. Each historian criticizing the others for ignoring aspects of evidence and overstating other aspects. They fit into 3 broad camps, the traditional view which is stated above, the revisionist view which is sceptical of the traditional one and thinks there were alternative reasons for dropping the bombs and also the middle view which stands somewhere between them.
Anyway that's all pretty much irrelevant.
The question is what do I do with this? Here I have a whole host of historians disagreeing with each other. I'm not so much asking what the ontological status of history is as what attitude to take towards it. The easiest thing to do would be to remain sceptical of all views, but that seems like a cop out.
I'm sure people will take the opportunity to write their own opinions of the bombing, which is fine and interesting in itself. I'm more interested in a general attitude towards historical events, especially ones which involve so much contention.
Comments (12)
The 'historicism' that Benjamin critiques I take to be the historiographical view of emphasizing the historian's role as 'objective' investigator, moved in his methods only by the rigours of objective empirical science, isolating the historical event from the present. But the point is that this positive science presupposes certain more fundamental interpretative assumptions which cannot be disclosed or discredited by further subsequent collection of empirical 'facts', but are always already there when the empirical data is collected, prioritized, and interpreted. In short, there is no 'objective frame' from which one can approach narrativizing history, but one is always re-appropriating the past along with one's ideological baggage, and the baggage of the present.
Quoting Baden
Historians writing history are also people that try to make it in this world. And yes, controlling the view of the past is a path to control the discourse of the present.
Let's look at the first subject: historians trying to make their careers. Now unlike doctors or lawyers who have gained a monopoly on their profession by a legal framework, anybody can actually write history... just as anybody can be a writer. So how can an upcoming historian make it? Hit the big time? Make oneself a name in the historian circles as a "new and upcoming" historian? Simple: have a "bold new insight" on something where the findings please somebody and the whole historical story "tells something also of this time". That the new history "rattles the cages" of the "stuffy old consensus" by questioning the facts that were it was assumed that historians had an agreement. Agreeing with everything that has already being written and not offering a new look isn't going to fly one's career as an important new historian.
Popular history is the one that pleases somebody's agenda and thinking of the present. It really is something that we ask: "What can we learn from this?" And from this we get to the next field: history as a tool of present political agendas. With let's say the attitude of the Turkish state towards the Armenian genocide or the Mongolian state trying to salvage some positive light on the Mongol Empire, the political aspects of history writing should be clear. Controlling the discourse or the way present political events and phenomenons are talked about is the way of modern propaganda... especially if the people can use search engines that aren't controlled. And that is of course interlinked to the past. How we see the past influences a lot on how we see the future, and even how we estimate the future. Hence historical revisionism can and is a political tool.
The solution is here to understand when some part of history is politically charged, too close to some actor pushing an agenda and inviting some historians to promote this view, and when it's really only historians debating history without much other interests.
Perhaps a thread on the ramifications of 100% voter turnout.
Germany was probably the initial intended target, but they were defeated in May, 1945. A plutonium was tested on July 16, 1945 and U235 and plutonium bombs were used on August 6 and 9th.
Discussions began in 1944 about how the war with Japan was to be concluded. There were at the time two or three alternatives (not including an atomic bomb which was still an unknown quantity). CIA Invasion of Okinawa and Kyushu and then a ground attack on Tokyo was one plan.
We don't need to know with complete certainty what the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the President or General Tojo and the Emperor of Japan were thinking in the summer of 1945. We know for certain that the war with Japan had been very costly, it was going to be over soon--one way or another--and it was ended.
There were tradeoffs to be made in the decision to invade, or not (from our side) and the decision to surrender, or not (from the Japanese side). No one could be sure at the time which course would be most favorable.
Appearing less partisan is itself a persuasive technique, one that I fall for.
Hey Shevek nice post, the problem is that it describes our actions. With certain issues my worldview is ill-formed and somewhat sceptical. I'm not necessarily concerned with an objective past, more what the hell do I do with the information. Read a bunch and assume it will culminate into a story that appeals to me?
Yes unfortunately many of the interesting issue are politically charged. And it's not like the ones that are not have never been, it's just that we have settled on a narrative for them.Quoting MonitorVoter turnout in Australia is ~93% it's still the same stuff. You get one of the 2 major parties, they make the decisions. Quoting Bitter Crank
A lot of the historians in the article are arguing that the narrative of the trade off between land invasion and atom bomb is just political spin.
Quoting shmik
Just about everything divides into three broad camps. Some people are vegans, some people eat only meat, and most people are somewhere in between. [B}Spin was from the beginning; is now, and ever more shall be, Spin without end. Amen.[/B]
We may at times be overly suspicious that politicians, generals, bankers, and everybody else are up to something other than what they appear to be doing.
History doesn't have a pre-ordained destination, but it quite often leaves pretty clear tire marks in the sand.
The trajectory of events well before Pearl Harbor pointed towards a major conflict in the pacific. Japan really had embarked on an expansion of it's controlled territory, and this eventually put them in political, military, and economic conflict with the British, Americans, Russians, et al. Once the battle began, it was clear that the Allied objective would be the defeat -- not just the containment -- of the Axis powers. We succeeded, but that wasn't guaranteed.
"Knowing that the atomic bombing or an invasion of Japan was unnecessary" is writing history through a rear view mirror. Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon didn't know how the war in Vietnam was going to end. I'm sure they assumed we would win it, until it became clear that we wouldn't. Bush and Obama didn't know how their respective military offensives would turn out either. I'm sure they thought it would all go well by the end. After all, these were just two bit countries, how hard could it be?
Those who were against Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan didn't know how it would turn out either. In 1968 we may have chanted, "Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh/The NLF is going to win" but we had no more idea of what the future was going to look like than anybody else did.
The trajectory of events over the last 50 years points toward more wars by the United States (and its frequently not very enthusiastic allies) to hinder, contain, or crush local challenges to some regional status quo which threatens US hegemony. The next challenge might be in the Middle East, might be in Africa, might be in South America, might be in Asia, might be in Europe -- take your pick. Hopefully the next challenge won't come from Canada.
The trajectory of events also points toward little chance for any domestic movement to actually change US foreign policy.
One item in the global status quo that hasn't changed is the threat of nuclear weapons. The United States, Great Britain, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea, (and Israel, so I have heard) are so armed. All of the possessor nations also possess (or are perfecting) missiles capable of delivering atomic bombs to distant sites (not sure about Israel's missiles).
Nuclear weapons are another trajectory. Today the Union of Concerned Scientists' doomsday clock is at 3 minutes before midnight (It was 5 minutes before midnight in 2012).
An odd sidebar of learning I've only just added to my pile is the stand that G E M Anscombe - translator of Wittgenstein and philosopher of 'Intentions' - took against Harry Truman when he was given an honorary Oxford degree, because of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Her powerful little polemic is online in various places, e.g. here: https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/3032-anscombe-mr-trumans-degreepdf
You gave a perfect example above, Bitter Crank, with "All this had been worked out by the White House, CIA, the Pentagon, and several slimy public relations firms in 1939". The thing is that someone will unfortunately believe this... or similar histories. Even if the CIA was established after WW2, even if it's predecessor was established only in 1942 and Roosevelt started the whole process of creating an intelligence agency in 1941 and even if the Pentagon was started to be built in 1941. And that of course that only in the fall of 1939 Roosevelt came aware of a possibility of a very powerfull weapon from a letter co-signed by Albert Einstein. Aside from those, people will believe that somebody "knew that there wouldn't be no invasion", Operation Downfall and it's part operations "Olympic" and "Coronet".
But this kind of attitude "What-you-have-been-taught-is-all-a-lie" attitude sinks in. Vast hidden nefarious conspiracies give reason to everything: a culprit for all the misery around.