I guess I expected more responses like this one, although I don't agree that those were the most salient reasons. I've never heard of anyone but Americans that support the "saved lives" explanation, which seems no better than the "to fight terrorism" line used to justify Iraq-Afghanistan.

As simple as it sounds, I think one huge factor is the Manhattan Project itself. Once all that effort, time, and money had been put into developing the bomb, it becomes psychologically very hard not to use such a weapon against an enemy that's pissed you off. My understanding is that the top brass were happy to drop the bomb on Kyoto (major Japanese cultural center) until someone somewhat more enlightened pleaded with them not to. The way I've heard it described was that it as though Truman et al. were on a "toboggan ride" that once initiated, was almost inevitably going to lead to use of the bomb.

I'll grant that the firebombings of Tokyo, Dresden, etc. were more destructive from a body count and cultural perspective, but that hardly seems a justification. Besides, this act let the atomic genie out of the bottle and, to this day, if say a jihadist were to get his hands on one of the these and drop one on a US city in retaliation for US aggression in the Middle East, do we even have a more valid complaint than Japanese who lost family members in Hiroshima?

In addition, notice that not one but TWO atom bombs were dropped. It's arguable whether or not sufficient time had been given for Hirohito to make a decision to surrender. What was it, four days between bombings?

August 6 and August 9, so 3.

Not to derail the thread, but this is a crucial piece of evidence pointing to a "science experiment" explanation, as the two bombs were differently constructed: one uranium, one plutonium.

The Soviet Union's position was probably a factor as well, but the cost of the Manhattan Project and morbid curiosity are underrated drivers in the episode.

The "it ended the war!" explanation is all but completely debunked. Declassified State Dept documents have revealed that Japan had been making overtures for peace all summer before the bombs were dropped. It was the insistence on "unconditional surrender" that prolonged the conflict. Even after the bombs fell, the US allowed a condition on the surrender (allowing Hirohito to remain as nominal emperor), which further indicates that the desire to drop the bomb was a motivating factor.

I'd heard of similar reasons, although one of them was, the cost and reputation of the Manhatten Project. Certainly, the desire to drop two bombs, while comparing yeild, was a factor, as well limitations of surrender. Hirohito agreed to all conditions save losing his position as Emperor, before the bombs were ever dropped. And remained only nominally so, in a tititular fashion after MacArthur's constitution, and famous ride. Remember the horse? MacArthur, would watch Hirohito ride this large white stallion, round and round the imperial grounds. (from u-2 spy planes, or maybe blackbird, photo I guess). MacArthur was determined to ride that horse. (old cavelry man, I'd bet) and finally after settling Hirohito in his position, he demonstrated his own Emperorness, by mounting and cantoring Hirohitos' famous white stalliion. It was a way of say Veni, Vedi, Veci, with cow patties.

Another reason I'd heard was the subjugation of the people. That Truman was concerned about the devine wind, kamikazes, types, that they'd be costly to subdue. He feared the impact on occupying forces, and hoped the atomic bomb would quell potential rebellion. I don't think that makes sense. It would only have effected on those who witnessed it's destructive aftermath, and those people would be too impaird to bother. Disregard.

I know this is blowing your mind, but what I said is not particularly original. In fact, it’s not original at all. I suspect that nearly every professional historian would agree with what I said.

Facts and the truth are not as easy as that. People accepted as a fact that the earth was the center of the universe for most of human history. It’s not. For years, historians saw the French Revolution as a great social revolution. Now most historians see it as primary a political revolution.

Don’t really have too much more to say on this.

I didn't say they were easy; i said they were important. Apparently, historians believe facts are unimportant. who knew?

I'm guessing your a university lecturer; do you mind saying where?
How does your time get split; and which bits do you enjoy most?

Is it true that during the US civil war that British troops where waiting in Canada and France had troops in Mexico both planning on fighting over the scraps that remained?

Thanks for any info. This is something I heard in a documentary but was never taught in high school.

1) How do you cope teaching subjects that are not 17-18th century. Is it a ''chore'', or do you still find it interesting?

2) One thing i debated recently with some friends was the objectivity of historians. History is mainly thought for:

a)cultural history
b)help understand the present&foreseeing the future.

However, we got on the subject of guys like Thucydides, Gibbon's and Will Durant. These guys are far from unbiased in their history. But on the other hand, they teach you lessons. A lot of history books from the last two decades are a lot more neutral. It's like ''scientific history'' with carbon dating and stats and all that. However at the same time, it's a lot less fun. This obsessive neutrality sometime leave you wanting more.

When i read Gibbon and Durant, i feel like i learn ''a lesson''.
When i read some of the recent history, it just seems like a series of fact put on a paper.

Im not saying history should be like Herodotus writes it with ridiculous numbers and bias, but do you like the ''lesson learn'' approach more?

Or your more with a complete neutral, analytic and stastical approach?

It's been said that Julius Caesar wrote many of his own reports on wars and conquests during his time. Some which may have been exaggerated and / or vilified his enemies, their cruelties and subdued his own.

How can do we come to conclusions on what is recorded in history as the truth? I've found myself slowly agreeing to some conspiracy theories. At this point I'm really not sure what to believe. i.e. 911 conspiracies, holocaust deniers etc. etc.

I read Hiroshima, by Hershey, when I was pretty young. To me, it seemed to be a factual account, and I've reread it several times without feeling that the author had an agenda. Since the atomic bombing has been mentioned itt, I wonder if you have an opinion about what sources provide the most factual accounts of how the decision was reached to drop atomic bombs?

if you had to recommend one lesser known part of history that you think most people would get a joy out of learning about, what would it be?

1 - do you believe the free-masons builded the french revolution ( especially considering the many masonic symbols on the declaration of human rights and the fact that it is stated that they had a prominent role in the french revolution in the encyclopedia britanica. )

2 - How can you explain that so many countries got white, blue and red flags ( BRITAIN, usa, Russia, Cuba, Italy, France, etc ) especially considering how important a distinct flag was on the battlefield and many of those countries where supposedly enemies.

3 - Is it true that the England Bankers ( Rothschild ) basically bought over England by lying on the outcome of the battle of Waterloo and beating the news with a courrier to England wich permitted them to buy a lot of stocks at a laughable price consolidating they're grip on England.

I'd really like to know the opinion of an expert on this ty very much

Why was John F Kennedy assassinated?

My interpretation is that history involves lots of objective facts.

But if 600 people died in a battle or 650 people did - it isn't really important - the important bit is why the battle was being fought and what the consequences of the outcome were.

The facts involved in the cause and the outcome are more important than the raw statistics of the battle, but the cause and the outcome will also involve interpretation based on subjective opinions such as people's individual motivations as well.

So you move away from factual statistical analysis to get at the 'important' stuff.

Love reading this thread, very interesting reading about a historian's mind-set. I've quoted you in my massive sticky collection

Not to be rude, but I think a few people asking for whether something is true/factual missed some massive points in OP's posts

EDIT: Some questions:

1) Do you find yourself becoming somewhat cynical learning about the many tragedies and scams?

2) When hearing people says stuff like that ^[(1)] Or see other mind sets/cultural things do you generally have a deepish understanding behind how it came to be and what it's likely to become/influence

3) How do you recognise your own biases when analyzing things? Not sure if this makes sense, but have you got a kinda non-cluttered "Buddhist" state of mind where your filters are kinda turned of, or are you more aware of your biases and work through it

I'm going through a stage where I'm starting to think pretty much everything is bs. I think it's to do with it being so hard to be objective in a subjective environment that's constantly changing. *insert super hard question here* Do you have any advice for a confused/angst ridden youngster who doesn't know what to make of his world?

In the United States we would simply say professor, but yes, I teach at a university. (A lecturer in the U.S. is normally a temporary position.) I’d rather not say the name, but I teach at a relatively small university in the mid-Atlantic region of the U.S.

During the semester, I spend roughly 70% of my time on teaching, preparing classes, and grading; about 20% on research and writing; and about 10% of my time on administrative work. During the summer, I spend about 70% of my time researching and writing, 20% of my time watching baseball, and 10% doing whatever random stuff.

I have no idea, but I really, really doubt it. France did control Mexico at the time and Britain did control Canada. I’ve never heard of either country seriously considering military intervention in the Civil War. The North and South had unimaginably massive armies. Both France and Britain would have had to mobilize their entire societies for war and then ship them across the Atlantic. So I highly doubt the story.

I actually enjoy teaching classes that are outside my immediate area of scholarship. I learn a ton about things I didn’t know much about, so it’s fun. It is exhausting however. It requires a lot more reading and prep work on my part.

As for your second question, I don’t think historians should make it a point to teach some type of moral or political lesson. And no historian, who is competent, would ever refer to themselves as objective either. Most historians simply try to analyze and understand history. I think the most significant thing one can learn from history (and I hope this is true for my students) is to develop one’s own critical thinking and analysis skills. This will help one better understand their own society, culture, etc. This is what one can “learn” from history. I am really incredulous about any claims that learning history can help make better decisions in the future. Human culture and society are way too complex and things change way too rapidly to make such facile claims.

See my above posts on this matter. I don't really have much more to say about it. Is there something in particular you want to discuss?

I don't know enough about it to say. Sorry.

McCullough actually has some interesting things to say on this subject in his Pulitzer Prize winning biography,"Truman". At the time, Truman and most advisers simply described this as a decision that was generally consensual. Virtually all the people involved agreed that the bomb was inevitable as an alternative to an invasion of the home islands, which would have involved horrific casualties. At the time, Truman contended that there was never a specific moment where he said, "drop the atomic bomb".

In later years, Truman apparently was more willing to take direct responsibility for the decision to drop the bomb.

It's an interesting subject and I believe that time has shown that the decision was ultimately correct given the context in which the decision was made. But, like most pivotal historic moments, it is certainly subject to debate.

Awesome pun, whether it was intended or not.

To argue this much further would be to derail this thread. Perhaps this debate demands its own thread. I do not believe the stated justification of "saving lives" has been debunked. And the reason you will only hear Americans support the "saved lives" explanation is because those "saved lives" were American.

We all should have the luxury of playing "Monday morning quarterback" years after the fact and allow ourselves to dictate the American's war objectives within which the context for making the ultimate decision to drop the bomb is presented.

That’s a tough one. I guess two things that most people don’t know about but I think they would find interesting are the history of witchcraft and the history the Caribbean. Witchcraft is incredibly complex yet fascinating. Likewise with the Caribbean. Most people don’t realize that the Caribbean was basically at the center of the European rivalries during the early modern period, not North America. Also, you have the development of slavery and pirates, which is all interesting.