Gar Alperovitz: Atomic Diplomacy
After the Japanese’s decisive naval defeat at Midway in 1942, the United States implemented their strategy of island hopping. The military strategy involved the United States moving from one island at a time to liberate the Pacific from Imperial Japan. After the Japanese defeat at Iwo Jima and Okinawa in 1945, the United States now had the ability to bomb Japan. After the United States’ blockading and relentless bombing of Japan, the nation refused to surrender. As a final attempt to avoid the invasion of Japan, the United States dropped the atomic bomb Little Boy on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. Three days later, the Soviet Union declared war on Japan and invaded Manchuria. On the same day, the United States dropped the second atomic bomb
…show more content…
Considered as a new methodology, historians deemed this as the revisionist approach to the surrender of Imperial Japan. As revisionist philosophy evolved, historians investigated several historical perspectives, such as culture and race. The method’s pioneer political economist Gar Alperovitz offered a new insight on Japan’s surrender. Coining the phrase “atomic diplomacy,” Alperovitz raises a new perspective, which identifies the term as the way that the creation and use of the atomic bombs affected the political relations between the United States and the Soviet Union when motivating the surrender. Different from Butow and Feis’ approaches to the topic, in Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam Alperovitz looks directly at the political factors involving the two countries’ attempts to move Japan towards surrender. Alperovitz claims that the Soviet Union’s invasion of Manchuria led Japan to surrender. He also agrees that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a political exploit used to intimidate the Russians. The Cold War, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and Alperovitz’s personal understanding of politics and the economy influenced his views on Japan’s choice to surrender. With the use of political documents, memoirs, and quotes from high-ranking United States military and governmental officials, Alperovitz critically analyses the final months of the war. By providing evidence for his claim, Alperovitz sets a new path for the future study of the
Considered as a new methodology, historians deemed this as the revisionist approach to the surrender of Imperial Japan. As revisionist philosophy evolved, historians investigated several historical perspectives, such as culture and race. The method’s pioneer political economist Gar Alperovitz offered a new insight on Japan’s surrender. Coining the phrase “atomic diplomacy,” Alperovitz raises a new perspective, which identifies the term as the way that the creation and use of the atomic bombs affected the political relations between the United States and the Soviet Union when motivating the surrender. Different from Butow and Feis’ approaches to the topic, in Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima and Potsdam Alperovitz looks directly at the political factors involving the two countries’ attempts to move Japan towards surrender. Alperovitz claims that the Soviet Union’s invasion of Manchuria led Japan to surrender. He also agrees that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were only a political exploit used to intimidate the Russians. The Cold War, the escalation of the Vietnam War, and Alperovitz’s personal understanding of politics and the economy influenced his views on Japan’s choice to surrender. With the use of political documents, memoirs, and quotes from high-ranking United States military and governmental officials, Alperovitz critically analyses the final months of the war. By providing evidence for his claim, Alperovitz sets a new path for the future study of the