The winners write the history, which doesn’t mean there aren’t other legitimate perspectives to be considered. History gets rewritten. Filled out.
I’m not sure what to make of the story about the end of WWII with Japan. For the longest time, we’ve been told that the a-bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki hastened the end of action in the Pacific theater. But now there’s a growing voice claiming that Japan was contemplating surrender before the bombs were dropped, when it looked like the Soviet Union was going to join the Allied effort, which would have been before August 6 and 9, 1945.
This sounds like an attempt to criticize the US for having an itchy trigger finger and using the bombs when it didn’t have to, especially if it had known that Russian entry into the Pacific conflict would have been enough to convince Japan to surrender. It seems there is growing support for the view that dropping the bombs was inhuman and unnecessary.
Is this just the latest attempt at revisionist history, or instead the result of finally hearing other voices who weren’t consulted when the victor’s draft was being written?