In the early 1970 s, David Bergamini transforms the study in Japan’s Imperial Conspiracy: How Emperor Hirohito led Japan into war against the West, by returning to Butow’s arguments on the surrender. In his history, Bergamini examines the history of Japanese culture in two volumes. Bergamini supports Butow’s claims while offering new schools of thought on what caused Japan’s capitulation. A native of Tokyo, Bergamini argues that Japan’s military culture and the position of power that Hirohito held placed the nation in an unwinnable war with the United States.
Bergamini focuses on Emperor Hirohito’s military and political actions leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. To support his thesis the author provides a background on Japan’s militaristic …show more content…
Bernstein transformed the study by raising several new questions for historians to consider. In his article “The Perils and Politics of Surrender: Ending the War with Japan and Avoiding the Third Atomic Bomb” the author followed the study of the topic in a similar course established by Alperovitz. Bernstein, a history professor at Stanford University, analyzes the motive to surrender from a political and military perspective. Bernstein examines both the decision-making processes that Japan and the United States faced in the last days of the war. The author returns to Butow’s original arguments on the turmoil that Japan faced internally and their efforts to negotiate the emperor’s reinstatement upon surrendering. Bernstein poses that if the United States had agreed to reinstate the emperor's political authority, Japan’s decision to surrender would have come quicker, ending the war without the use of the atomic bombs. The author supports his position by citing primary sources from political officials that were close to President Truman and Emperor Hirohito. The use of Stimson and Kido’s diaries provides Bernstein’s claims with credibility. They offer credibility to the argument, as the primary sources provide Bernstein with a detailed account of both countries’ governmental decisions in the days before the surrender. Bernstein claims that in the past historians have “neglected” to analyze the thought that the United States directly extended World …show more content…
In Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb, the author inspects the creation of the atomic bomb and its use in motivating Japan to surrender. Richard Rhodes approaches the Japanese surrender from a traditional perspective that is on a similar trajectory that Butow and Bergamini present in their histories. While approaching the traditionalist history on Japan’s surrender Rhodes moves the history onto a new course as he researches the arguments of revisionist historians. The author’s research into revisionist histories, alongside his traditionalist views, provides historians with a new historical perspective. Rhodes’ offering of a new insight into the motivation for Japan’s surrender allows historians to understand the equal value in both traditional and revisionist sides of the
Bergamini focuses on Emperor Hirohito’s military and political actions leading to the attack on Pearl Harbor. To support his thesis the author provides a background on Japan’s militaristic …show more content…
Bernstein transformed the study by raising several new questions for historians to consider. In his article “The Perils and Politics of Surrender: Ending the War with Japan and Avoiding the Third Atomic Bomb” the author followed the study of the topic in a similar course established by Alperovitz. Bernstein, a history professor at Stanford University, analyzes the motive to surrender from a political and military perspective. Bernstein examines both the decision-making processes that Japan and the United States faced in the last days of the war. The author returns to Butow’s original arguments on the turmoil that Japan faced internally and their efforts to negotiate the emperor’s reinstatement upon surrendering. Bernstein poses that if the United States had agreed to reinstate the emperor's political authority, Japan’s decision to surrender would have come quicker, ending the war without the use of the atomic bombs. The author supports his position by citing primary sources from political officials that were close to President Truman and Emperor Hirohito. The use of Stimson and Kido’s diaries provides Bernstein’s claims with credibility. They offer credibility to the argument, as the primary sources provide Bernstein with a detailed account of both countries’ governmental decisions in the days before the surrender. Bernstein claims that in the past historians have “neglected” to analyze the thought that the United States directly extended World …show more content…
In Richard Rhodes’ The Making of the Atomic Bomb, the author inspects the creation of the atomic bomb and its use in motivating Japan to surrender. Richard Rhodes approaches the Japanese surrender from a traditional perspective that is on a similar trajectory that Butow and Bergamini present in their histories. While approaching the traditionalist history on Japan’s surrender Rhodes moves the history onto a new course as he researches the arguments of revisionist historians. The author’s research into revisionist histories, alongside his traditionalist views, provides historians with a new historical perspective. Rhodes’ offering of a new insight into the motivation for Japan’s surrender allows historians to understand the equal value in both traditional and revisionist sides of the