Speaker: History of WWII still a moving target

A foreign service officer in the U.S. State Department revealed at the Foothills Library on Friday how history does not stay in one place but evolves and can unravel facts previously believed unyielding.

As part of a series of historical discussions known as the Looking Glass Presentations, the Foothills Library featured Jeanne Pryor, who has a doctorate in history from the University of Oregon, although she notes, she is not a historian.

Previously serving as a foreign officer in Europe and elsewhere, Pryor now works as a consultant to the State Department. She spoke to an audience of nearly 20 on the topic of the decision to use the atomic bomb at the end of World War II and the historical understanding of how that decision was made and why it is still an emotionally charged issue.

Pryor prefaced her discussion by explaining that WWII is a national identity narrative. It informs Americans who they are and what they stand for. And many believe that once recorded, history is fixed in place.

But the answer to history's questions changes over time as new evidence appears and that evidence is placed into a broader perspective.

The prevailing view of historians was that by dropping the atomic bomb, it eliminated the need for invading Japan, saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and ended the war much more quickly.

But after the war some historians began to question the morality of dropping the atomic bomb and even whether it was necessary, Pryor said. In the book "Japan Subdued" by Herbert Feis, published in 1961, Feis maintained that during the war, according to a U.S. strategic bombing survey, the war would have been over by the end of 1945.

This would have happened even without the atomic bomb or an invasion because Japan was so poor in natural resources it had neither oil nor coal reserves to fuel its war machinery. A blockade of the Japanese mainland would have forced their surrender, according to Feis.

Several years later, "Atomic Diplomacy" by Gar Alperovitz argued the atomic bomb's use was a political decision to intimidate the Soviet Union. This provoked a spirited response of historians who didn't agree on anything among themselves other than Alperovitz was wrong.

It was only in the early 1980s when President Harry Truman's notes from the 1945 Potsdam Conference after the fall of Germany but before the surrender of Japan revealed that Truman knew of alternatives to the atomic bomb but chose not to pursue them, Pryor said.

The atomic bomb was used primarily for military reasons, but secondarily, for political and diplomatic reasons as well, Pryor said.

Don Petrie, a winter visitor from Tacoma, noted that although it is sad to say, but sometimes war-time innovation leads to beneficial civilian applications. Today, nuclear powered ships are able to travel around the globe without refuelling for a year, he said.

But without the development of the atomic bomb, nuclear energy might not have happened, Petrie maintained.

Some look at history like a mirror, Pryor said. Sometimes people see what they would like to see but not what is really there.

"I can tell you as a foreign service officer, conflicting historical narratives are a root of cultural and political conflict even at a level of international relations. It certainly led to war in the Balkans in the 1990s. And it is an important element in the Arab/Israeli conflict because they both have a book that says the (disputed) land is (theirs)."

---

William Roller can be reached at wroller@yumasun.com or 539-6858.