This is a guest post by Peder Anker, author of For The Love of Bombs
It is often said that history is written by its winners, and the history of the atomic bomb is no exception. From 6 August 1945 – the day the United States dropped the bomb on Hiroshima – the victorious narrative was carefully shaped by military officials. Central to this propaganda was the Smyth Report, authored by Princeton physicist Henry DeWolf Smyth. Released on 11 August 1945, it became a bestseller, presenting the bomb as a heroic achievement that saved lives, ensured peace and promised economic prosperity despite its destructive power. While Japanese victims suffered the horrific effects of radiation, U.S. journalists, following the report’s narrative, celebrated the scientific triumphs of figures like J. Robert Oppenheimer, cementing a skewed story that remains influential today.
Why does this flawed narrative persist despite scholarly critique? The Smyth Report served to justify American moral and technical superiority, the secrecy of the multi-billion-dollar Manhattan Project, and the funding of research during an era of deprivation. It ignored uncomfortable truths like the segregation of Black workers and the exploitation of resources, reducing the bomb’s story to a simplistic tale of good versus evil, with the United States as the virtuous hero. Oppenheimer became the central figure in this narrative; his ‘tortured genius’ used to obscure critical aspects of the bomb’s creation.
The real challenge of nuclear weapons was not assembling the bomb – blueprints for that are readily available today – but acquiring and enriching uranium. This process, the true secret of nuclear weapon-making, was largely absent from the Smyth Report. By focusing on Oppenheimer’s personality and Los Alamos adventures, the report distracted readers from questioning nuclear destruction and the ugly consequences of uranium enrichment.
This glorified portrayal of the bomb persists in modern media, most notably in the 2023 film Oppenheimer, which won the Oscar for ‘Best Picture’ in 2024. The film recycles familiar themes of military, scientific and technological triumph, embellished with dramatic performances and romantic subplots, including the use of (an)atomic women to sex up the bomb. It features notable figures like Albert Einstein but omits critical historical details, including the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The devastation at ground zero is replaced by a Hollywood-friendly narrative, aligning with past media depictions that sanitise the bomb’s legacy.
The film’s focus on Oppenheimer’s brilliance and moral dilemmas mirrors the Smyth Report, reinforcing a narrative that prioritises American achievement over accountability. After watching the film, I was compelled to write a book to challenge these dominant narratives. The official history of the atomic bomb, in its various retellings, urges us to forget rather than remember. For the love of bombs, it is time to bid farewell to Oppenheimer and the myths surrounding him.
Instead, I have pursued what is known as the ‘people’s history’ approach to the bomb by focusing on the importance of the lives of ordinary and marginalised citizens. The emerging literature on the people’s history of atomic bombs points to an alternative and more truthful story of resistance that may – hopefully – inspire readers to take action against this horrific weapon.