The Zinn Test

[wtmusic]

Ask any skilled debater: the proof is in the summary. Any of us can dribble on for five minutes on our favorite subject and hope that (if our audience is still awake) we have managed to get our point across. Meanwhile, those who are distilling the essence of an argument into 2-3 sentences are taking home the grand prize.

Howard Zinn, in his speech last night, summarized the 'Hiroshima Argument' brilliantly:

"Those people you know who support the bombing of Hiroshima to end WWII sooner--this is what you ask them (I like to tell people what to do): 'The bomb killed eighty thousand civilians. Would you be willing to kill eighty thousand American civilians if that would end the war sooner?'"

What kind of responses would we see if that question was posted on FreeRepublic.com?

[Brucey]

1. Yes, civilians killed supposedly to save soldiers.

But the war was nearly over anyway. The meme is a joke. The bombs were dropped to get a good negotiating position with Russia (who won the war in Europe). Even Truman admitted that.

[bread_and_roses]

2. He does go

right to the heart of the matter, doesn't he:).

[trotsky]

3. I'll tell you some of the responses.

"Better them than us."

"They started it. We finished it."

etc.

The thing is, it's an unfair summary statement anyway. It's easy to second-guess history, but ultimately events played out in the way they did. If we hadn't dropped the bomb, would Japan have surrendered the next day anyway? Or would they have waited until after another 1000 soldiers died (both sides)? 5000? 20,000? 100,000 plus civilians in urban combat as our troops stormed the mainland?

We'll never know.

[wtmusic]

5. Not unfair at all

Let's assume it's July 1945 and we ask the same question. "We believe it's necessary to drop the bomb to end the war. We know with reasonable certainty that eighty thousand civilians will die."

Would we kill eighty thousand of our own civilians for the same odds of success? The crux of the matter is still intact.

Re: the "better them than us" comeback: the followup would be, "So you accept that a Japanese life is less valuable than an American one?"

There are obvious contradictions in any stance which professes a religious foundation here.

[trotsky]

13. It's war, people.

War is not pretty. War is not fair.

I don't like the fact that we dropped it, but what's done is done. We can never know how things might have turned out had we not.

I'd like to know how the question of killing 80,000 of our own would somehow end a war against Japan, because right now it's the most obscure of hypotheticals I can imagine. Which kind of makes pondering it rather ridiculous.

And to the question of whether a Freeper accepts that a Japanese life is less valuable than an American one, they would likely answer with a resounding yes.

[bleedingheart]

20. I have to agree with you Trotsky

What is done is done...

The more important thing is, have we learned anything?

[Mairead]

27. "We can never know how things might have turned out"

We have some fairly solid evidence, though.

[RichM]

7. I've seen those exact responses here on DU.

"Better them than us."

"They started it. We finished it." ... etc.

In August, when the anniversary of the bombings came around, there were numerous threads on this issue. Those same arguments were made here.

[MrSoundAndVision]

4. A Bit of a side note here

Howard Zinn has endorsed Dennis Kucinich as president. Click on http://www.kucinich.us and click on endorsements, last name on the list.

[flamingyouth]

6. Let us not forget that Prof. Zinn was a soldier in WWII himself

I think it's important to consider when I (a non-military person who's never seen combat, obviously) discuss the value of soldiers' lives. I love Howard Zinn; he is one of my true heroes.

[FreeperSlayer]

8. Puhleez!

Go back and read yer history.
Estimated U.S. casualties in taking the home islands: 2.5 million.

If you had had to make the choice (80,000 'them' v 2,500,000 'us'), what would you have done?

[el_gato]

10. what are you talking about?

There was never a need to invade Japan.

[Yupster]

31. But there was a

plan to invade Japan. It would have happened had Japan not surrendered.

PS - my own opinion is that I wish they had waited more than three days between bombs so the Japanese government would have had time to do a proper assesment and come to a decision. On the other hand, I'm sure our leaders didn't feel like we owed them a whole lot.

[wtmusic]

11. Not the question

The question is: if by killing 80 thousand American civilians we could end the war, would we have done it?

And Japan's military was decimated. 2.5 million to take the home islands is ridiculous.

[Sushi_lover]

23. depends on the historian

many historians contend Japan was ready to surrender before Hiroshima was bombed.

many also state the estimates for American troop losses were wild guesses or fiction.

http://free.freespeech.org/evolution/ends.htm

where are you getting the 2.5 million figure?

[spindoctor]

9. Nothing has changed since then

If you ask anybody here how many people have died in Iraq, they will give you a 300 ball park number.

Nobody counts the thousands of Iraqis.

Maybe Amnesty International has numbers on suspected people that were killed by the Hussein regime over the past 20 years.
I wonder if it comes close to the number of Iraqis that were killed by the Bush regime over the past year.

[wtmusic]

12. Figures vary widely

as you might expect, depending on who you ask.

A reliable range might be 250-500K including gassing the Kurds, but upwards of 1M died during sanctions.

2M have died in Sudan in the last ten years. Why have we not invaded Sudan? (you know the answer)

Guardian UK estimates 2003 Iraqi military deaths at between 13K - 43K, and IraqBodyCount.net estimates 8K civilian deaths.

Would we kill 8K of our own civilians to free the Iraqi people? Should it be our choice to make?

[spindoctor]

17. Let's not forget Congo

10 to 20 million deaths in the past 10 years. Nobody knows exactly, nobody exactly cares.
I like to use that number if people bring up the horror of the deaths in the Middle-East (from either side).

What's the number if you leave out the gas and the sanctions?

[bpilgrim]

14. we NUKED a DEFEATED NATION'S INNOCENT CIVILIAN POPULATION TWICE

against the advice of all informed military leaders in theater at the time who knew they were trying to surrender.

they recommend that we go that route - accept their surrender - to SAVE LIVES.

peace

[wtmusic]

16. The making of the atomic bomb

consumed more resources than any other single US project to date. Did the enormous amount of money spent not create a proportional pressure to use it?

How much money will we spend to develop proposed 'bunkerbuster' nukes?

[dofus]

15. The initial invasion forces were on their

way to Japan when the bomb was dropped. From all reports of the behavior of the Japanese so far, we were going to have to invade the Home Islands, and probably fight door-to-door, with a horrendous loss of life on both sides.

The Nagasaki bomb probably wasn't necessary, because the Hiroshima one really ended the war.

[bpilgrim]

18. not according to all informed military leaders in theater at the time

you are simply regurgitating the propaganda spoon fed to us since birth.

http://www.doug-long.com/quotes.htm

peace

[DrFunkenstein]

19. Madeleine Albright

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

[jonnyblitz]

21. hell, there are DUers that support the Hiroshima bombings

you don't need to go to free republic to find them. :puke:

[Muddleoftheroad]

25. Damn right

And, history proves that the choice, while a hard one, was the correct one. What Truman did worked.

It's Monday, appropriate for your Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

[wtmusic]

28. The Monday Morning Quarterbacking is all yours, my friend

Quite an assumption that Truman's solution was the best one. Expecially when your family wasn't burned to death, was it?

[Brucey]

22. Truman said to the American people:

"I'm going to kill 80,000 Japanese and one blond."
"Why the blond?" they asked him.
"I told you they wouldn't care about the Japanese," Truman replied.

[progressivejazz]

24. It's a false question.

And as such, a logical fallacy.

Others on this thread have pointed out that the choice Truman had to make was not whether to kill 80,000 Japanese civilians or 80,000 American civilians. Truman's choice was whether to drop the bomb or not, given the intelligence he had at the time. I don't know what intel he had then, but it sure as hell wasn't that killing 80,000 American civilians would end the war sooner.

Logical fallacies don't win debates.

[wtmusic]

29. What is a 'false question'?

Is that a term you just made up? It doesn't exist anywhere in logic so I have to assume so.

The point is to show the hypocrisy that killing other countries' civilians is preferable to killing our own. The fallacy lies in your assumption that it was even reasonable to consider this as a realistic possibility.

[DealsGapRider]

26. I just found out that Zinn

...was a decorated combat veteran in WWII. I wouldn't have figured that. Does anyone know what decoration he received?

[FDRrocks]

33. No clue...

but I do know he was a bomber.

[Skip Intro]

30. American lives are more valuable

everyone knows that, silly. That's why 3,000 9*11 dead are far more mourned than tens of thousands of Iraqi dead, not to mention the deslolate dead in Afghanistan, etc....

And Rich and Powerful American lives are more valuable than poor, military, homeless American lives. That's why rich Americans don't fight in the wars they create.

keep on rockin in the free world

[Yupster]

34. They sure are during a war

A general tries to kill the other guys and keep his guys alive -- not keep count and keep things even.

[wtmusic]

37. We're talking about civilians

We could end these Iraq problems in a New York minute with a couple hundred pounds of plutonium, but that's really not an option, is it?

[FDRrocks]

32. No!

imo opinion if wars need to be fought all countries should send soldiers in unarmed. Fist fight to the death. The nuke is inhumane, DU bombs and DU coated armor are inhumane. And a freeper would not be phased, they think americans fighting and dying for colonialism is terrific.

[Adjoran]

35. I have yet to see

any positive indication that the Japanese would have accepted a surrender under anything close to the final terms - which were in complete conformity with the Allies' Potsdam Declaration:

" GRÄSSLI
Charge d'Affaires ad interim
of Switzerland

The Honorable
JAMES F. BYRNES
Secretary of State.

BYRNES Reply of August 11, 1945. <4>

AUGUST 11, 1945

SIR:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of your note of August 10, and in reply to inform you that the President of the United States has directed me to send to you for transmission by your Government to the Japanese Government the following message on behalf of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China:

"With regard to the Japanese Government's message accepting the terms of the Potsdam proclamation, but containing the statement, 'with the understanding that the said declaration does not comprise any demand which prejudices the prerogatives of His Majesty as a sovereign ruler,' our position is as follows:

"From the moment of surrender the authority of

<4> Ibid.

Page 77
the Emperor and the Japanese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender terms.

"The Emperor will be required to authorize and ensure the signature by the Government of Japan and the Japanese Imperial General Headquarters of the surrender terms necessary to carry out the provisions of the Potsdam Declaration, and shall issue his commands to all the Japanese military, naval and air authorities and to all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations and to surrender their arms, and to issue such other orders as the Supreme Commander may require to give effect to the surrender terms.

"Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese Government shall transport prisoners of war and civilian internees to places of safety, as directed, where they can quickly be placed aboard Allied transports.

"The ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Potsdam Declaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people.

"The armed forces of the Allied Powers will remain in Japan until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam Declaration are achieved."

Accept

JAMES F. BYRNES
Secretary of State

Mr. MAX GRÄSSLI
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of
Switzerland.

Page 78
GRÄSSLI Letter of August 14, 1945. <5>

AUGUST 14, 1945.

SIR:

I have the honor to refer to your note of August 11, in which you requested me to transmit to my Government the reply of the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and China to the message from the Japanese Government which was communicated in my note of August 10.

At 20.10 today (Swiss Time) the Japanese Minister to Switzerland conveyed the following written statement to the Swiss Government for transmission to the four Allied governments:

"Communication of the Japanese Government of August 14, 1945, addressed to the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China:

"With reference to the Japanese Government's note of August 10 regarding their acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration and the reply of the Governments of the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, and China sent by American Secretary of State Byrnes under the date of August 11, the Japanese Government have the honor to communicate to the Governments of the four powers as follows:

"1. His Majesty the Emperor has issued an Imperial rescript regarding Japan's acceptance of the provisions of the Potsdam declaration.

"2. His Majesty the Emperor is prepared to authorize and ensure the signature by his Government

<5> Department of State Bulletin, August 19, 1945.

Page 79

and the Imperial General Headquarters of the necessary terms for carrying out the provisions of the Potsdam declaration. His Majesty is also prepared to issue his commands to all the military, naval, and air authorities of Japan and all the forces under their control wherever located to cease active operations, to surrender arms and to issue such other orders as may be required by the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces for the execution of the above-mentioned terms."

Accept

GRÄSSLI
Charge d'Affaires ad interim
of Switzerland

BYRNES Reply of August 14, 1945. <6>
AUGUST 14, 1945.

SIR:

With reference to your communication of today's date, transmitting the reply of the Japanese Government to the communication which I sent through you to the Japanese Government on August 11, on behalf of the Governments of the United States, China, the United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which I regard as full acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration and of my statement of August 11, 1945, I have the honor to inform you that the President of the United States has directed that the following message be sent to you for transmission to the Japanese Government:

"You are to proceed as follows:

"(1) Direct prompt cessation of hostilities by

<6> Ibid.

Page 80
Japanese forces, informing the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers of the effective date and hour of such cessation.

"(2) Send emissaries at once to the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers with information of the disposition of the Japanese forces and commanders, and fully empowered to make any arrangements directed by the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers to enable him and his accompanying forces to arrive at the place designated by him to receive the formal surrender.

"(3) For the purpose of receiving such surrender and carrying it into effect, General of the Army Douglas MacArthur has been designated as the Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, and he will notify the Japanese Government of the time, place and other details of the formal surrender."

Accept

JAMES F. BYRNES
Secretary of State

MAX GRÄSSLI, Esquire,
Charge d'Affaires ad interim of Switzerland

Page 81
"I deem this reply a full acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which specifies the unconditional surrender of Japan."


Statement by PRESIDENT TRUMAN on the Japanese notes accepting the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. <7>

Washington. August 14, 1945.

I have received this afternoon a message from the Japanese Government in reply to the message forwarded to that Government by the Secretary of State on August 11. I deem this reply a full acceptance of the Potsdam Declaration which specifies the unconditional surrender of Japan. In the reply there is no qualification."

Source: http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html

The best estimates for the impending invasion were 1 million Allied casualties. The Japanese knew of the decimation of Hiroshima well in time to prevent Nagasaki; they did not initiate any contact. After Nagasaki, they responded with the surrender offer immediately.

The Zinn question is flawed, at best. No nation-state in human history would have sacrificed its own civilian population to spare the enemy in an active declared war, whether or not that action would shorten the duration of the war. Nor should they have done so. The first obligation of a legitimate government is to protect its citizens' lives and safety.

It may be a wonderful dream to think of a world without borders or nationalism, but that world did not exist in 1945, nor does it today.

It is humane and decent and just to minimize civilian casualties. But when the choice comes down to their civilians, or many times that of our soldiers, the choice is clear. War is a dirty business. Winning a war is not easy or pretty, but it beats the hell out of losing one.

The real moral dilemma was the choice of targets. All major military bases had been destroyed or severely damaged already, so the only remaining legitimate military targets were port facilities. Hitting these with The Bomb would have cost even more lives, though, and hindered rebuilding efforts besides. So the military misled Truman that Hiroshima and Nagasaki held disguised military factories. They did, but the factories were so small they had been ignored by the conventional bombing campaign.

There was even serious debate about a "demonstration" detonation, hitting the ocean near Japan or one of several sparsely-populated islands as a warning shot. That decision was avoided because a) we only had two bombs, and b) we weren't sure it would work being dropped from the air (which had not yet been done), so a failed demonstration would have emboldened resistance.

It is important to remember how the Japanese conquered and fought. The Nazis systematically killed Jews and others they considered opponents or inferior, but this was a project of the hierarchy; only the policymakers and the soldiers at the death camps really knew the details of what was going on. The average Japanese soldier was a brutal, killing, torturing, raping machine. Our POWs held by the Germans were treated almost in accord with the Geneva Convention, while those held by the Japanese were routinely tortured, starved, or used as slave labor. Civilian populations were ruthlessly attacked by the Japanese, while the Germans reserved their brutality for signs of actual resistance.

[lostnfound]

36. I thought that was the 'lostnfound test'?

Okay I'm not a world-famous awesome historian. But I feel pretty good that I asked the same type question of coworkers before the Iraq war started. (If to get rid of Saddam you had to bomb a few American cities...) Alas, my audience was a bit too obtuse to grasp a hypothetical.