There are "historians" on either side of the debate, which is always what I find so insulting about this framing. It implies that it's brilliant, REAL historians against the stupid, uneducated, and malicious. The one prominent hack in the debate is a "revisionist:" Alperovitz. https://twitter.com/BulletinAtomic/status/1291041775369347073

Hasegawa's book wasn't that great in 2006, hasn't aged well, and wasn't the final word. Bernstein's desperate clinging to the low casualty thesis, a staple of his career, is almost embarrassing at this point. Frank and Giangreco methodically executed it, but it won't stay dead.

I find the casualty debate tiresome and largely overtaken by events (a view shared by Richard Frank I believe), but Bernstein's 2008 article, which they link, isn't even the last word on the subject. Giangreco's massive book is, and adds so much more. But let's ignore that.

Let's also ignore Japanese casualties (including the famine the Japanese military anticipated and deemed an acceptable cost of "victory"), that the war was still going on elsewhere, and that there were growing famines in Indochina and Korea. This was an ugly conflict.

Yellen expanded upon an important third element in addition to Soviet intervention and the nukes: fear of an internal revolt. That is also left unmentioned. Missing that wouldn't be a big deal if the authors weren't lecturing us on how informed and up on the literature they are.

Technically they are correct, the nukes weren't NEEDED to end the war. Nor did they NEED to invade. The US had the home islands under a near total air and sea blockade. Of course that means drawing the war out long enough for mass starvation to induce a surrender. How humane.

Other alternatives they list:
- "Negotiations" (I won't even touch on how stupid that is, just go read Frank's Downfall or something.)
- Demonstration of a bomb (disputed, but unlikely to induce a surrender)
- Soviet intervention alone (IMO buried by Frank and others)

I'm not coming out FOR or AGAINST the nukes. As I have noted before, there were multiple decision-makers who were impacted in different ways by different events that happened rapidly or concurrently. Sourcing is problematic. Definitive answers to some questions are impossible.

I'm so sick of this bad-faith BS. Why is this the one area where otherwise intelligent academics just get to ignore evidence that inconveniences them, fake evidence (Alperovitz), or pretend entire elements of the historiography don't exist? It does nobody any favours.