#Historiography - #Hiroshima and #Nagasaki Part VII

Traditionalists versus Revisionists

While scholarship is often categorized in terms of the military necessity of the bombings, the realities are more nuanced. Revisionists provide substantial evidence that political considerations were significant, but few address the issue of what effect, if any, this American nuclear advantage may have had on the subsequent Cold War. Most scholars acknowledge that the reasoning behind the bombings, and their effects, were multi-faceted. Implicit in most revisionist works is the assumption that, if it can be proved the bombings were primarily motivated by political and strategic considerations regarding Russian diplomacy, they were therefore illegitimate and immoral. Likewise, if the author’s morals discourage civilian casualties, justification for the bombings on any grounds will be difficult. Research on this topic will frequently reveal some form of the statement that “the overwhelming consensus of historians” now believe the bombings were unjustified. This is more a reflection of modern opinion of warfare in general than evidence of a scholarly monolith.