“An over-cute modernism”
I can cite contemporary opinion, (including that of American nationals), who believed the same, and expressed that the necessity of the bomb development for American deterrence. Even before 1945 and the dropping of the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I can cite contemporary opinion regarding negotiation wrt to Japan an opinion that I do not share as yet another alternative to the blockade.
Arguing that citation of contemporary opinions as ‘bad faith’ does a disservice to these men and women, many of whom were instrumental in the development of the Atomic bomb. Many of whom would later go on to the development of the postwar theories of Detente.
“or some other word.”
Citation of contemporary opinions is the precise opposite of your accusations of ‘recentism’. These are not recent theories. In fact, they aren’t talked about much because they are contrary to more recentism and revisionism that seeks to state, “there were no viable alternatives to the bomb” This is false. There were many other options taken into consideration even if they were not used back in 1944 and 1945, and even earlier in some cases.
“deeming themselves “historians” (which is not a profession)
In what way is ‘historian’ not a profession?
“thus above moral reproach.”
I don’t believe I’ve made any claims to being a historian here, nor have I stated that anyone who is one is above moral reproach. That is all you. I’ve simply attacked historical speculation lacking sufficient proof.
“panting and salivating”
No bias here!
“Deterrence was in the dictionary in 1945, but its meaning contained nothing like what it does today.”
It tended to be called Proliferation in the early 50s and deterrence today. The label is used for convenience. The concept that American possession of the atomic bomb would deter nuclear attack from Germany or others is precisely what FDR wrote about in 1939, well before the initiation of the Manhattan project.
“Dr Leo Szilard, who’d led the way in getting the project approved, had grown to doubt the whole affair so seriously that he led the way in arguing - to authorities, behind closed doors - against using the bombs in battle).”
So you’re arguing that it was in fact contemporary opinion, which corroborates with what I am saying here. Thank you.
Again, I suggest you spend some time reading my posts first - I don’t believe that it was wrong to drop the atomic bomb on Japan. I also don’t believe that the atomic bomb was the only viable option.
Before labelling me a progressive lickspittle it would be helpful for you to do due diligence in the future.
“...In what way is ‘historian’ not a profession? ...”
I guess we’re going to have to proceed via baby steps here.
A profession is defined by exclusivity: the in-group is delineated from the out-group. There are criteria for qualification and entry; for maintaining standards; gatekeepers exist, and sanctions can be taken members who violate standards (both of competence and ethical probity).
The traditional “big three” are theology, the law, and medicine. Academics languished long as provisionally-respectable stepchildren, both helped and held back by the mundane fact that the first two were bound up with voluminous book-learning.
Others were added as the scientific revolution gathered momentum: engineering (civil initially, then mechanical, then electrical), administration, management, academia; military professionalism got its start in the United States via civil engineering (West Point, officially founded in 1802, was the nation’s very first engineering school), but paucity of content remained a factor until the proliferation of technological weaponry began to accelerate later in the 19th century.
Forum members will note that “historian” and “scientist” appear nowhere on any of these lists (fans of Star Trek and Dr Who notwithstanding). Historians are at most academics, and science was the province of wealthy eccentrics or underbusy clergy until the rise of government bureaucracies and university-led research institutions in the late 19th century.
Historians are usually writers, and there are no entry criteria for that activity. Of a certainty, authors never face discipline. Essentially, writers are people who can’t shut up ... the fact that they can multiply words means more to them than the validity of anything they might chance to write.
” ... I don’t believe I’ve made any claims to being a historian here, nor have I stated that anyone who is one is above moral reproach. That is all you. I’ve simply attacked historical speculation lacking sufficient proof.
“panting and salivating”
No bias here! ...”
I confess to bias. How astute of JCB to notice.
I AM biased. I favor the troops, officers, supply clerks, industrial workers, scientists, technicians, farm families, managers, officials, even the politicians of the 1940s.
They are to be preferred to today’s comfortable, self-righteous, self-satisfied dilletantes, who are pleased to look down on decisions taken in WWII, and deem themselves morally superior just because they don’t like the fact that the United States used atomic bombs against the enemy.
Plenty of people hold to the conceit that it’s a bad thing to kill the enemy. They strain to move heaven and earth to convince the rest of us that they are smarter and more moral.
I think they’re merely dopey.