歴史修正主義と Hiroshima

　夕方にちょっと買い物に出て、帰ってきてネットを覗いたらこの間の記事にいくつかトラックバックをいただいてますね。ブックマークコメントも見ました。
　この件については単純にGoogleで検索してみても、わりに簡単にいくつかの興味深い結果が見られます。

　revisionist Hiroshima の検索結果 約 79,800 件

　たとえば次のブログ記事は検索結果の16番目のものです
Oliver Kamm

November 10, 2006
Cold War revisionism - a footnote
This post is by way of a footnote to the comment three posts down the page on the Democrats, Iraq and history. It has nothing particularly to do with current political debate, but as I refer in that post to Robert H. Ferrell's illuminating new book Harry S. Truman and the Cold War Revisionists, it's probably worth making a point about Professor Ferrell's title. The term "revisionism" in this context refers to a school that attributes responsibility for the Cold War to aggressive actions by the US after WWII, in exploiting Soviet weakness and seeking to open overseas markets for American corporations. The school is associated particularly with the work of the late William Appleman Williams, a historian at the University of Wisconsin and author of The Tragedy of American Diplomacy, 1959. Revisionist historians are sometimes known as the Wisconsin school, because Williams's work was extended by some of his students, such as Walter La Feber, author of America, Russia, and the Cold War, a ninth edition of which appeared in 2002.

　Revisionism is thus a historical thesis focusing on American motives in the Cold War. It is closely associated with the argument that the US bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was an instrument of "atomic diplomacy", designed to intimidate the Soviet Union, rather than a means of ending the Pacific War. Writers who hold this view, such as Gar Alperovitz in his influential 1965 book Atomic Diplomacy, maintain that the decision to surrender had already been taken by Japan. It would be fair to say that the thesis of imminent Japanese surrender is without historical merit and Alperovitz's work is not well regarded by scholars of the Pacific War. (Professor Ferrell gives in his footnotes a rather blatant instance of Alperovitz's lifting a quotation completely out of context.) But it is an important claim of Cold War revisionist argument that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first acts of the Cold War rather than the last acts of the Pacific War.

リヴィジョニズム（修正主義）はそれゆえ冷戦期のアメリカのモティーフというものに焦点をあてた歴史的テーシスです。それは合衆国のヒロシマとナガサキへの爆撃が、太平洋戦争を終わらせる手段というよりはソ連を脅すよう仕組まれた「原爆外交」の道具であるという議論に緊密に結びついています。1965年に『原爆外交』という影響ある本を書いたGar Alperovitzのようなこうした観点を持った作家たちは、（原爆投下時には）すでに日本は降伏の決定をしていたと主張します。日本の降伏が差し迫ったものだったというこのテーシスは歴史的には偏ったものではなく、Alperovitzの労作は太平洋戦史の学者たちにあまり認識されていないということを言っておくのがフェアだとは思います。（ファレル教授は彼の本の脚注でAlperovitzの本の例を、脚注の文脈とはまったく関係なく、むしろみえみえにするようにして目立たせています）しかし冷戦期の歴史修正主義者が、ヒロシマとナガサキは太平洋戦争の最後の一手というよりも冷戦の最初の一手であったという主張は重要なものです。

　そして次の引用は検索の19番目のものからで、Robert James Maddox氏の本の書評です。
H-Net Reviews
in the humanities and Social Sciences

Robert James Maddox. Weapons for Victory: The Hiroshima Decision Fifty Years Later.
Columbia:University of Missouri Press, 1995. vii + 215 pp. Notes, bibliography, and index.
$19.95 (cloth), ISBN0-8262-1037-6.Reviewed by Guillaume de Syon, Albright College.Published by H-War (March, 1996)

The controversies of summer 1995

surrounding the fiftieth anniversary of the atomicbombings of Japan left all sides agreed on only one point: little, if anything, was historically resolved.From the congressional rancor over the canceled Enola Gay exhibit to Japanese disgust with the U.S. postage stamp showing an atomic cloud, opinions ran deep. This also becomes clear inhistoriographical terms in Robert James Maddox’sreview of the events leading to the decision to dropthe bomb.

Over nine chapters, Maddox takes the readeralong the complex and sometimes confusing pathof political and military decision-making in anattempt to dispel what he terms "the fondness ofmany academics for tales of conspiracy in highplaces." The "many" academics seem to have asingle leader: Gar Alperovitz, the author of AtomicDiplomacy (1965; rev. ed., 1994). Maddox argues,with reason, that Alperovitz epitomizes theextreme revisionism that characterized 1960s U.S.political scholarship influenced by the Vietnamwar, which heavily criticized U.S. motives forbombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Maddox beginshis investigation by reviewing the dilemmaspresident Harry Truman faced as he took over fromFranklin D. Roosevelt. In analyzing the decisionto bomb, Maddox considers several major points,including the Soviet and Japanese dimensions andthe casualty question.

The Soviet issue (whether dropping the bomb was done solely to impress Moscow for political and military gains) and the Japanese one (whether Tokyo would have surrendered solely because of a threat to drop the bomb) have become major points of contention between conservative and revisionist historians.

　ソヴィエトの係争点（原爆を落としたのは政治的軍事的得点を得るためにモスクワに印象付けるためだけに行なわれたかどうか）と日本のそれ（日本政府（東京）は単に原爆に脅されて降伏したのかどうか）は、保守的歴史家と修正主義的歴史家の間での主要な論争点になっている。

　検索の先頭から二例はこのMaddox氏の新刊『Hiroshima in History』についてですね。氏は原爆外交について主張するRevisionistに批判的な方のようです（この本の副題もThe Myths of Revisionism−リヴィジョニズムの神話、となっています）。三例目は上の方の引用で挙げられているRevisionistの（この範疇に入れられる方でしょう）Alperovitz氏の『Was Harry Truman a Revisionist on Hiroshima?』となっています。

　ここではほんの数例しか挙げられませんが、一つだけいえることは、歴史修正主義とヒロシマ・ナガサキへの原爆投下についての関連は（根も葉もないものとか陰謀とかではなく）確かにあるということでしょう。日本語版Wikipediaのあの記述は、何も火のないところに立てられた煙ではなかったということだと考えます。ただし、上の引用のCold War RevisionismというものとRevisionism全体の関連についてはちょっと調べたぐらいでは見つけられませんでした。
（まだ読んでいる本の続きがありますのでこのぐらいで…）