Alperovitz attributes this avoidance to the fact that the United States government recognized future Soviet influence as a “problem” and, therefore, wished to intimidate the Russian leadership through the use of atomic bombs as a “diplomatic weapon” (Alperovitz, 479-482).
![eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run](https://www.aerotechnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/enola-gay8.jpg)
As Alperovitz states, however, the American government clearly realized that more peaceful “alternatives to the bomb” existed, yet they chose to avoid them (Alperovitz, 7). Through the use of propaganda, Alperovitz proclaims that the United States government purposely mislead the American people, following the atomic bomb drops, into believing that no other practical alternatives existed to end the war.
![eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51d5nCaYWTL._SY498_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Alperovitz adds, however, that the American government used this sentiment to their advantage in order to justify the use of atomic weaponry (Alperovitz, 648). In his book, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb, Alperovitz, like Takaki, asserts that racist sentiment pervaded American culture following the attacks upon Pearl Harbor (Alperovitz, 528). In 1996, Gar Alperovitz, a revisionist historian from the University of Maryland, largely agreed with the statements of both Takaki and the Smithsonian Institute. Thus, as Takaki demonstrates, Truman quickly cast aside more peaceful and less-destructive alternatives that existed to the bombs in order to rapidly end the war. Following the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Takaki asserts that the Truman administration felt enormous pressure from both civilians and Congressional leaders in the final months of the war to decisively and effectively terminate the conflict with the Japanese as quickly as possible (Takaki, 8).
![eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run](https://photos1.blogger.com/hello/237/5636/1024/DCP_02971.jpg)
As he states, the American people suffered from “racialized rage” that originated from the unprovoked attack on Hawaii in December of 1941 (Takaki, 8). Takaki proclaims that the decision to drop atomic bombs resulted from racist sentiment that pervaded America following the attacks upon Pearl Harbor. In 1995, Ronald Takaki, a revisionist historian from the University of California, largely agreed with the findings of the Smithsonian in his book Hiroshima: Why America Dropped the Bomb. Thus, it is here that the modern historiographical debate over the atomic bombs begins. As a result, historians from both sides of the debate took to the offensive in order to support and defend their own viewpoints. As Charles O’Reilly and William Rooney describe in their book The Enola Gay and the Smithsonian Institution, the exhibit advocated that “Japan was on the brink of surrender in the summer of 1945,” and that racial tensions led President Truman to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima (O'Reilly and Rooney, 5). Instead of appealing to a broad range of historians and observers, the exhibit’s presentation style sought to reject ideas held firm by those who advocated the atomic bombs’ usage in favor of the revisionist explanation that denounced their use (O'Reilly and Rooney, 1-2). Debates continued between both groups until the early 1990s, when the historiographical debate reached a boiling point during the unveiling of the Enola Gay exhibit by the Smithsonian Institute.
![eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run eye witness account of the enola gay bomber run](https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/04/10/11/276BF48200000578-3033470-image-m-49_1428660996205.jpg)
From the moment the Enola Gay bomber crew delivered their devastating payload to the unsuspecting people of Hiroshima, two schools of thought emerged between historians over the use of atomic bombs in Japan: those who supported their use, and those who opposed their implementation.