"And history, with all her volumes vast, hath but one page." This verse from Byron's Childe Harold illustrates that through the river of time, there is but one course history follows. No event in history viewed by society as good or bad can ever be changed. This undeniable aspect of linear time has come under attack in the past several years by "revisionist historians," a new surge of historians trying to change what has been in the history books for fifty years, one hundred years, or longer still. This search for truth is admirable, but many of these revisionists are attempting to destroy American patriotism and pride through twisting facts and telling half-truths. The motivation for someone to manipulate our perception of history into something it was not baffles me; no change in how we view history will alter its true events.

One of the most attacked issues has been the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. More specifically, the issue is the motivation and reasons that Truman had for dropping the bomb. For the fifty year anniversary of Hiroshima in 1995, the Smithsonian Museum of Air and Space opened a new exhibit displaying part of the Enola Gay, the bomber that dropped "Fat Man", as it was called, on Hiroshima. Along with the exhibit is a film with interviews of the crew on the plane, footage of the end of the war, and other facts for the entertainment and education of tourists and scholars alike. The original film, when viewed several days before the opening, painted the crew of the Enola Gay out to be war criminals, the murderers of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. World War II veterans all over the world were outraged. Ultimately, the Smithsonian Institute dropped the film and its companion material from the exhibit and replaced it with an impromptu short film. The Enola Gay now exists as a primarily self-sufficient exhibit with very little interpretive evidence or theories. This was not the end, but only the beginning of the misrepresentation of those brave soldiers, President Truman, and the US. Furthermore, the attack on Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb is a perfect model of the way in which revisionist historians tend to manipulate the truth and twist their logic to their advantage.

These revisionists tend to attack three points about the bombings, the first of which is that the estimates of Allied casualties resulting from an invasion of Japan were sorely overestimated. The post-war estimate of one million lives saved by the bombing was said to be an inflation to justify Truman's actions against Japan and was commonly referred to as the "postwar myth." It is true that the public and even the media eventually inflated that claim to the plural "millions", but the estimate of one million was within estimated possibilities even before the bomb was dropped (King 3). The concept that an invasion of the fundamentalist isles would not cost hundreds of thousands of American lives in addition to the Allied and Japanese troops is the absurd denial of misinformed people. Everything in the war to that point had shown the Japanese military to be an organized group of fanatics: the kamikaze pilots, the suicide of hostages, the Nanjing Massacre; even the attack at Pearl Harbor was on a Sunday, a time chosen because many soldiers would be away from their stations attending church services. This left the base the least guarded of any time. All of these events show a brutal and heartless fighting spirit that would have resulted in massive losses on both sides had the Japanese isles been invaded. It was at the time a little known fact that the islands, especially Kyushu, were preparing for an invasion and would be ready months before any attempted takeover would be possible in the Pacific (King 3). This fact is known to, but overlooked by revisionists to avoid weakening their own point. This is typical of revisionist history. Its professors simply ignores points that are not to its benefit. For this reason, it should be clear to everyone that revisionist history is very manipulative and cannot be trusted or tolerated.

Another disputed aspect of the bombing is two-fold: the fact that some feel that Truman was merely flexing his arm to the Russians and showing off his power as well as the fact that some say Truman was trying to prove his own virility to the world. Both of these theories exist to prove that Truman was merely power-hungry. Revisionists say that America used diplomatic means to keep Russia out of the war with Japan long enough to use the atomic weapon. Why would America want the Russians to stay out of a war that was proving to be extremely costly and difficult? The Japanese way of fighting was completely unknown to the western world and America needed all the help she could get. This revisionist theory of diplomatic interventions by America with Russia is drawn from the memoirs of American ambassador to Russia Harriman. In fact, these documents and others show that Harriman was pushing the Russians to finish other diplomacy with China and join the war with Japan as quickly as possible (King 3). As for claims that Truman was trying to prove his manhood by killing thousands of people, the very notion is ridiculous. Revisionists also paint the picture of Truman as being a cold-hearted man who, on a whim, dropped two atomic weapons on civilian targets. Aid for these outragous claims are drawn from people such as Watanabe Shoichi, a professor at Sophie University, who said, "US dropping the A bomb indiscriminately (on civilian targets), it was because that the US from the very beginning wanted to target the civilians" (Apologize 1). This is entirely false. The US had to target civilians. It was the only way to break the Japanese machine. Truman was merciful in the fact that the Japanese were warned and he chose industrial cities. He paid Japan the respect they didn't show us at Pearl Harbor. Truman was motivated my military reasoning, not personal grudges or ego trips. As the former Command Pilot of the Enola Gay, Brigadier General Paul W. Tibbets (USAF, ret) said in a news release, "We had a mission. Quite simply, bring about an end to World War II" (Tibbets 1). Revisionists point to other causes of the bomb dropping. Ronald Takaki, a revisionist, wrote a book entitled Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Atomic Bomb. A reviewer summarized Takaki's feelings on the psychology of Truman's decision saying, "Called a sissy as a youth because he was small and wore glasses, he spent a good deal of his life proving his masculinity" (Rothenberg 1). Though this may be true, Truman was not insane and would not nuke two cities to try and make himself look big. One would be insane to try to write that off as the reason for the bombing of Japan. It is a very weak point, not to be considered in making any kind of intelligent decision. It is obvious that dropping the A bombs were military decisions, not Truman's personal power quest.

You cannot touch on the subject of the morality of the Hiroshima bombing without addressing the argument that there is evidence that the Japanese may have been already trying to surrender and the Russians joining the war would be enough to ensure it. Revisionists point to and harp on a tentative peace talk in Moscow in the summer of 1945 that was set up by the Emperor. The revisionists take this as a sure sign that the Japanese were going to surrender as long as the Emperor was allowed to keep his status (King 3). Again ignoring other evidence, these same historians don't take into account what America's MAGIC decryptions found. These decryption codes, when applied to intercepted Japanese transmissions, revealed that Japan "was preparing a 'decisive battle' on the beaches of Kyushu while trying to strike separate deals with Chiang Kai-shek and then with Stalin (King 3)." All of these side-deals along with past events like Pearl Harbor and the Nanjing massacre show that Japan, despite its cultural leanings toward chivalrous honor, could not be trusted.

Revisionist history, especially in a case as integral to our nation's past as the Hiroshima bombing, is an aboration. It clouds the truth with falsities and delusion. These revisionists are attempting to do something that can't be done: change events of the past by how society views them. I feel strongly moved by General Tibbit's words, which I feel summarize the whole argument against revisionist history.

It is our responsibility to think through what society and the media tell us and filter out the truth from its "revisions". I challenge everyone to listen to the truth and not to the lies told you by revisionist historians seeking to corrupt your thoughts. These lies corrupt our country, media, and the world population. Don't be corrupted. Don't be fooled. Don't give in.