Questioning the Revisionist History of Dropping the Atomic Bomb

Whenever someone looks back at history and tries to convince the reader that if y had been done instead of x then the result would have been different in this way, the reader should be skeptical. Such recounts often use evidence to support their claim that action y would have had different outcomes than action x, but neglect to incorporate the information that is contrary to what they are trying to prove. Reading the article about the revisionist view of dropping the atomic bomb on Japan I am to no degree convinced by the evidence put forward that the war could have been ended without any major military action.

First, revisionist history relies on the fact that no one can ever prove you wrong, only speculate. A historian can make any claim regarding a change in the course of action taken and can never be proven wrong with building a time machine to go back in time to witness how exactly things would have been different. Although revisionist history is a good means to question what has occurred in the past and begins the dialogue to discuss past events, it is not an accurate means of recounting what has happened.

The main argument in this particular article that prevents me from agreeing with the vast amounts of revisionist history stating the surrender of Japan could have been obtained without the atomic bomb is Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Not only the dropping of the atomic bomb, but the fire bombings of Tokyo and Kobe in the months before August 1945. The bombing campaigns had destroyed several square miles of each city and killed nearly 100,000 people. Yet, despite these atrocities the Japanese refused to surrender even though their air force had been destroyed and American bombers were operating with little enemy resistance due to the depleted Japanese air defenses.

Furthermore, the Japanese resistance to surrender is evidenced again by Japan's reaction to the dropping of the atomic bomb. Even after Hiroshima was destroyed the government refused to surrender. After the bombing of Nagasaki there was still a week long delay before the surrender. A country that had dealt with so much suffering and destruction for months would in all likelihood not have surrendered without facing a massive destructive force it could not defend itself against. The atomic bomb was necessary. Japan would not have surrendered without its use.

Just to clarify and sum up my point. If Japan had not surrendered after the firebombing of Tokyo and Kobe which were two utterly atrocious events, and had not surrendered after Hiroshima was destroyed with the dropping of one bomb, what would make people think that Japan would have surrendered without realizing anymore casualties? Japan was not near the brink of surrendering as there revisionist authors suggest. The actions in light of the fire bombing and the delayed surrender after dropping the atomic bombs suggest Japan was much further from surrendering than some suggest.