Revisionist history looks back at the end of WW II and argues that the US dropped atomic bombs on Japan to assert its supremacy over the Soviet Union.
That the allied status of the two countries was situational was no surprise to anyone. After all, the USSR had signed a non-aggression pact with its sworn enemy, fascist Germany. More important to the USSR (much like any power) in 1939 was protecting itself and its sphere of influence; aligning with Germany meant the Nazis would stop at the Russian border. (Whether Stalin and company believed the agreement would hold or signed it to buy itself time is a separate topic.)
Operation Barbarossa, the 1941 German invasion of the USSR, and the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor later that year, brought the US and USSR together. But even if the USSR may have had some interest in retaining this alliance post-war, the US certainly did not. The atomic bombs sent a clear message to the USSR about the US’ global supremacy, at minimum in the arms’ category.
This was a major topic in Prof. Stephen Whitfield’s “Culture of the Cold War” class at Brandeis. When we all concluded that this made sense and expressed our alignment with this interpretation, Prof. Whitfield did what every professor should. He reminded us that this reinterpretation contradicted the official justification, which was that the bombs would end WW II. He wasn’t telling us we were right or wrong; he was doing what a professor should, reminding us to carefully assess all evidence before drawing conclusions.
The primary argument against the revisionist interpretation is that Japan — unfathomable in retrospect — did not surrender after the first bomb.
But then I look at Iran. Israel’s strike last weekend decimated Iran’s nuclear program (literally around 90%). A rational actor would take a step back to reassess — the largest military force in the world has showed its willingness to act against us. This military force was in and out of airspace before the world knew that the strike had even taken place. This military force could destroy us in an instant. Yet Iran chose not only to keep up its bombing of Israeli targets, but also attack US military installations!
It’s a much-needed reminder that there are rational and non-rational actors. One of the biggest mistakes rational actors make is failing to recognize the difference.
While I’m still convinced the US bombed Japan in part to assert its military supremacy, I also believe it was to end the war. Ceasefire or not, that Iran continued its missile barrage on June 22-23 demonstrates that like Imperial Japan on Aug. 7, 1945, Iran is not a rational actor.
Shana Goldberg may be reached at shana@ijn.com
© IJN 2025
