Why didn?t we warn Japan we would use the bomb if they didn?t surrender? - Page 3 - GoFuckYourself.com

Dirty Dane · 02-23-2007, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I think I was pretty clear.

Ok, so you're saying that because there were flights over Japan, before Hiroshima, there were no need to worry about their defense. Just let them know

Pleasurepays · 02-23-2007, 10:05 PM

blah blah

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

so looks like no warning to the japanese people...until after the hiroshima bomb but then also no warnings for the people of NAgasaki where the second bomb hit i mean ifyou can trust this info...id look deeper but...the history buffs here will know for sure wont you guys....i mean it said it in your history books? is that where you learnt that you warned the people first? keepin mind this thread isnt..why didnt japan warn its people

That is an OLD entry of Wikipedia, try the updated one instead which also is where I got the link to the PBS leaflet. I mean if you are going to cite sub-sources go directly to the sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

That is an OLD entry of Wikipedia, try the updated one instead which also is where I got the link to the PBS leaflet. I mean if you are going to cite sub-sources go directly to the sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

i dont use wikepdia..it changes for popular public opinion

spunkmaster · 02-23-2007, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornopete

And you base this on ....

The Japanese had a plan that everyone would kill their kids and themselves if the US launched a land invasion into mainland Japan and the Military would fight to the death.

Another reason Hiroshima and Nagasaki were picked was because we pretty much fire bombed most of the bigger cities throughout Japan and they were running out of targets that would have a big impact.

For those interested in the history we DID warn them and Hilohito wanted to surrender but his Generals and War staff wouldn't let him. He was really a figurehead to keep the masses in line but the country was really run by the Generals.

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

no, im making valid points that you are calling stupid because you dont have a good argument against them now answer my question lets say it was up to you to end the war and you had just gotten this neat new weapon, are you saying that the best plan of action would be the one that was taken?

You act like the decision was a knee jerk reaction to the acquisition of a new weapon? The decision to drop nukes on Japan was a long hard thought about decision by a Democrat President who wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

L-Pink · 02-23-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

no, im making valid points that you are calling stupid because you dont have a good argument against them

now answer my question

lets say it was up to you to end the war and you had just gotten this neat new weapon, are you saying that the best plan of action would be the one that was taken?

The Japanese were going to fight to the last person if we landed troops. Not only did we save our own troops by using nuclear weapons ... we saved tens of thousands of Japanese civilians.

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

i dont use wikepdia..it changes for popular public opinion

Lol dude you just DID use wikipedia, answers.com IS wikipedia entries lol.

webmasterchecks · 02-23-2007, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

You act like the decision was a knee jerk reaction to the acquisition of a new weapon? The decision to drop nukes on Japan was a long hard thought about decision by a Democrat President who wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

so do you think that he made the best decision possible, in hindsite? do you think we could have taken actions that had the same chances for the same results without such waste?

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

blah blah

you lie...why

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:14 PM

well wikipedia then..states that there was no warning of the nuclear attack

i mjean that is what we are talking about..so lets find out.

why dont one of you guys look for the facts...a bit further then wikipedia

notabook · 02-23-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

You sure like to make assumptions. Too bad you have absolutely no clue of the mindset of war-time Japan.

Pretty convenient that their timetable suddenly synched up with ours after the second bomb was dropped.

So that 2nd bomb magically made them think “oh shit, this a-bomb thing must be for REALS! We thought that first one was just some elaborate illusion that David Copperfield setup! OH NOES, SURRENDERS NOW!”?

First bomb goes off, destroys 60%+ of the city, 70k of their people die nearly instantaneously… they are down with that, it's all good. But when that second bomb went off JESUS CHRIST NO!

Seriously, that makes no sense. After they saw the destructive power of the bomb their timetable was already set in motion. Any additional bombs we used did nothing to further expedite things imo.

webmasterchecks · 02-23-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

The Japanese were going to fight to the last person if we landed troops. Not only did we save our own troops by using nuclear weapons ... we saved tens of thousands of Japanese civilians.

sure, but the instant we had a verified working bomb, the probability of having to invade the mainland was reduced, im just talking about how we used the bomb

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

You act like the decision was a knee jerk reaction to the acquisition of a new weapon? The decision to drop nukes on Japan was a long hard thought about decision by a Democrat President who wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

really? i think jhe found out he had a big ass bomb...and said fuck it..lets use it...cause truman knew nothing about the manhattan project until Rosevelt died

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

so do you think that he made the best decision possible, in hindsite? do you think we could have taken actions that had the same chances for the same results without such waste?

For the last 50+ years people have been debating that question and the vast majority of scholars, strategists, politicians and historians come to the conclusion time and time again that the bombs were probably the quickest least costly solution for all sides involved. Watch any documentary about the bombs and most of the time near the end they will have this very question and some opinions on the subject.

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

really? i think jhe found out he had a big ass bomb...and said fuck it..lets use it...cause truman knew nothing about the manhattan project until Rosevelt died

Yes yes my plan is coming together to blame it on the Democrats! Blah go kill some babies Phoenix.

L-Pink · 02-23-2007, 10:19 PM

Japanese civilian deaths .....

Nagasaki ... about 50,000 nuclear
Hiroshima ... about 125,000 nuclear
Tokoyo ... about 125,000 fire-bombing

Conventional bombing would have eventually killed far more, nuclear got their attention and everything ended sooner.

broke · 02-23-2007, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

lets say it was up to you to end the war and you had just gotten this neat new weapon, are you saying that the best plan of action would be the one that was taken?

For someone that seems to have such little understanding of the mid 20th century culture and even less understanding of mid 20th century world events, you sure yap quite a bit.

Would I have used two A-bombs to end the war in the Pacific theater? ABSOLUTELY.

1.4 to four million Allied casualties estimated in an invasion v. 140,000 civilian casualties

Sorry but sometimes -- it's that simple.

Splum · 02-23-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

After they saw the destructive power of the bomb their timetable was already set in motion. Any additional bombs we used did nothing to further expedite things imo.

THEIR timetable? The Emperor WANTED to give up but his military wouldnt let him! Besides usually the surrendering party immediately surrenders after something of that magnitude, what we should wait to make an appointment of surrender?

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Yes yes my plan is coming together to blame it on the Democrats! Blah go kill some babies Phoenix.

my work here is done

mass confusion and mayhem spread

chaeck out Phoenix 2.0 where i argue for both sides of every argument

HEAT · 02-23-2007, 10:33 PM

Japanese kiilled millions of innocent Asian people during the war.
kidnapped and raped tens of thousands of Asian women, compulsorily drafted 10000's of young men in their colonies under name of their emperor.

I believe dropping the bombs SAVED not only lives on both sides but also 1000000's of Asian citizens.

baddog · 02-23-2007, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

no, im making valid points that you are calling stupid because you dont have a good argument against them

now answer my question

lets say it was up to you to end the war and you had just gotten this neat new weapon, are you saying that the best plan of action would be the one that was taken?

If I had limited resources to make another one, and I thought it was going to end a war that had been raging for 4 year and killing millions, I never would have wasted time with the warnings.

baddog · 02-23-2007, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

keepin mind this thread isnt..why didnt japan warn its people

Maybe for the same reason that they told their people that Americans were going to do to them what they had done to the Chinese, causing mothers to throw their children off cliffs before killing themselves.

webmasterchecks · 02-23-2007, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by broke

For someone that seems to have such little understanding of the mid 20th century culture and even less understanding of mid 20th century world events, you sure yap quite a bit.

im a yapper, ok, leaving to go try to yap at some ladies right now, wish me luck, holla

baddog · 02-23-2007, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

so do you think that he made the best decision possible, in hindsite?

absofuckinglutely. It took two bombs to get them to surrender.

And you can't see why I made the earlier comment about your intelligence?

baddog · 02-23-2007, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phoenix

well wikipedia then..states that there was no warning of the nuclear attack

i mjean that is what we are talking about..so lets find out.

why dont one of you guys look for the facts...a bit further then wikipedia

You are probably right . . . they did not use the words nuclear or atomic

Phoenix · 02-23-2007, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HEAT

Japanese kiilled millions of innocent Asian people during the war.
kidnapped and raped tens of thousands of Asian women, compulsorily drafted 10000's of young men in their colonies under name of their emperor.

I believe dropping the bombs SAVED not only lives on both sides but also 1000000's of Asian citizens.

yeah japan has a violent violent history..my wife is korean..she tells me all about it

baddog · 02-23-2007, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notabook

Any additional bombs we used did nothing to further expedite things imo.

Dude, Hirohito is the one that said enough, the generals did not want to stop, even after the 2nd bomb.

You act like these people were rational. They weren't.

DaddyHalbucks · 02-23-2007, 10:58 PM

Japan needed a crippling blow. And then another one to show we were not a one hit wonder and that we were totally serious.

Japan was under a fanatical regime. They were prepared to fight to the end.

An invasion in lieu of the bomb was projected to kill millions.

Dirty Dane · 02-23-2007, 11:23 PM

Truman officially warned the Japanese government to surrender completely, or suffer "complete and utter destruction."

The people of Hiroshima were not warned. The only "warning" they recieved were the 3 planes picked up at radar and some warning about this on Japanese radio broadcast. Since it was a small formation, and they lacked fuel and equipment, they were ordered not to attack the planes. They did not know what was coming.

Thats what happened. If the bombings were right or wrong, is another story.

CDSmith · 02-23-2007, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

we did . . . even dropped leaflets and told them to hit the road

That's really all that needed to be said in this thread.

Argument done as far as I'm concerned.

baddog · 02-23-2007, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

That's really all that needed to be said in this thread.

Argument done as far as I'm concerned.

Yet it will hit 4 pages (at least)

webmasterchecks · 02-24-2007, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

absofuckinglutely. It took two bombs to get them to surrender.

And you can't see why I made the earlier comment about your intelligence?

lets leave my intelligence out of it and concentrate on the facts and merits of this issue

my plan would absolutely work, and the only caveat i have seen with it so far may be not portraying the image/perception that the US does not fuck around and WILL bomb the fuck out of 170,000 people if it wants to, maybe to show russia it means business

Rochard · 02-24-2007, 12:05 AM

In hindsight sixty years after the fact, we cannot judge why the US dropped nuclear bombs on Japan in the 1940s. It was a very different time, the world was in a different place; The world had been at war for almost a decade and millions upon millions were being slaughtered.

People are horrified that over three thousand US soldiers have been killed in Iraq. Compare this to five thousand in one day on one island in the South Pacific ( Iwo Jima ).

It was a different time and a war the likes of which we have never seen since. There was no smart bombs. Read the Geneva that was in place at the time of WWII; If a city had a any type of military outpost it was considered fair game. Because of the weapons of that time, it was common to bomb entire cities, destroying them.

In today's world nuclear weapons are considered "bad" and "evil". But during WWII the object was to destroy, not select worthy targets. The US sent out fleets of bombers, sometimes two hundred bombers at a time, to attack cities. More people died in such single bombing missions than died from a single nuclear attack....

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Japanese civilian deaths .....

Nagasaki ... about 50,000 nuclear
Hiroshima ... about 125,000 nuclear
Tokoyo ... about 125,000 fire-bombing

Conventional bombing would have eventually killed far more, nuclear got their attention and everything ended sooner.

The end goal of the nuclear bomb was, in simple terms, to big a bigger bomb.

And the Emperor did want to surrender.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

THEIR timetable? The Emperor WANTED to give up but his military wouldnt let him! Besides usually the surrendering party immediately surrenders after something of that magnitude, what we should wait to make an appointment of surrender?

In fact, the Emperor made a recording stating he wanted to surrrender, and the military stormed the palace and took control of the country. ( I don't remember if this was shortly before the first bomb or shortly after.)

The Japanese were rather brutal warriors. They would kill themselves before surrendering. Civilians as well - They would rather kill themselves before accepting American occupation.

The US was planning to invade the mainland of Japan. Based on what the US had learned while fighting from island to island across the South Pacific, the US knew that this would be a long and costly battle. It's possible that more Japanese would have died in fighting on the mainland than died with the two bombs that were dropped on two cities.

Was a warning issued? I've been reading about WWII for twenty years and never heard they were warned. This doesn't bother me; None of the countries warned others they were attacking a certain city and when 100k people died in coventional bombing and no one really lost sleep over it.

But the most interesting part of the entire story is the honor of the Japanese people. They lost the war - for a large number of reasons - but still held their head guy and accepted the defeat. Look at Japan now. One can even question who really came out on top.

Pleasurepays · 02-24-2007, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

my plan would absolutely work, and the only caveat i have seen with it so far may be not portraying the image/perception that the US does not fuck around and WILL bomb the fuck out of 170,000 people if it wants to, maybe to show russia it means business

"one caveat"?

how about the fact that you can't prove it or test it ... and you just summarily declare yourself right and others wrong.

webmasterchecks · 02-24-2007, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CDSmith

That's really all that needed to be said in this thread.

Argument done as far as I'm concerned.

its one thing to seriously setup a process to properly communicate to people that we have a weapon that can seriously fuck them up, and they better get serious

or to just go through the motions

im serious that i cant believe some of you are not this compassionate, this could have been our neighborhoods, our sisters and mothers and wives, with just one little twist of destiny, we could have been in their shoes, and this was something that was preventable, one mans decision, a proper communication of how we can seriously fuck them up in a way they would understand may have saved 170,000 lives

baddog · 02-24-2007, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

lets leave my intelligence out of it and concentrate on the facts and merits of this issue

Your intelligence seems to have been left out of it. That was your decision, not mine.

The "facts and merits of the issue" have proven that.

webmasterchecks · 02-24-2007, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

"one caveat"?

how about the fact that you can't prove it or test it ... and you just summarily declare yourself right and others wrong.

sorry, i was pissed at baddog and got overly defensive, but im still convinced that we could have (with the bomb) ended the war without having to bomb a huge mass of civilians

baddog · 02-24-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

one mans decision, a proper communication of how we can seriously fuck them up in a way they would understand may have saved 170,000 lives

I have to admire the consistency with which you insist on leaving your intelligence out of the conversation.

baddog · 02-24-2007, 12:14 AM

I guess the talking up the chicks didn't go over too well.

webmasterchecks · 02-24-2007, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Your intelligence seems to have been left out of it. That was your decision, not mine.

The "facts and merits of the issue" have proven that.

dude, i dont want to debate or discuss this topic with somebody who resorts to the childish antics you do, besides, ive followed many of your posts and your opinion no longer holds much weight

webmasterchecks · 02-24-2007, 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

I guess the talking up the chicks didn't go over too well.

nope, but tomorrows another day!

CDSmith · 02-24-2007, 12:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

its one thing to seriously setup a process to properly communicate to people that we have a weapon that can seriously fuck them up, and they better get serious

or to just go through the motions

im serious that i cant believe some of you are not this compassionate, this could have been our neighborhoods, our sisters and mothers and wives, with just one little twist of destiny, we could have been in their shoes, and this was something that was preventable, one mans decision, a proper communication of how we can seriously fuck them up in a way they would understand may have saved 170,000 lives

I'm not about to get drawn into your self-indulgant little fantasy rant here, except to say that no one on our side WANTED to bomb ANYONE. It was done to force an early end to the war and to halt the killing. Period.

Japan could have prevented all of it had they just stayed on their own soil, or at the very least had they surrendered when they had the chance. And they did have the chance, several times in fact. Wake up. Read a history book or something.

Splum · 02-24-2007, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

im still convinced that we could have (with the bomb) ended the war without having to bomb a huge mass of civilians

You are one of the few.

Rochard · 02-24-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

its one thing to seriously setup a process to properly communicate to people that we have a weapon that can seriously fuck them up, and they better get serious

or to just go through the motions

im serious that i cant believe some of you are not this compassionate, this could have been our neighborhoods, our sisters and mothers and wives, with just one little twist of destiny, we could have been in their shoes, and this was something that was preventable, one mans decision, a proper communication of how we can seriously fuck them up in a way they would understand may have saved 170,000 lives

My Grandmother's entire family was slaughtered by the Nazis and my Grandfather (on the other side of the family tree) died in the South Pacific. Tens of millions of lives were lost on both sides, and many many more would have died if the US invaded the Japanese mainland. If the bombs weren't dropped and the US was forced to invade, the war would have dragged on another year and yet more millions of lives would have been lost.

People continue to question why the US nuked Japan. More people, innocent and otherwise, died in other large scale bombing raids. The bombing of Dresden in Germany is a classic example, as is the bombing of Tokyo.

The two nukes on Japan saved millions of lives on both sides.

Rochard · 02-24-2007, 12:28 AM

Seems my figures might be off when I say "five million lives" were saved by the dropping of the bombs.

From Wikipedia:

Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for American casualties and the tens of millions for Japanese casualties.

baddog · 02-24-2007, 12:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THEMASKEDRIDER

dude, i dont want to debate or discuss this topic with somebody who resorts to the childish antics you do, besides, ive followed many of your posts and your opinion no longer holds much weight

childish antics? you are the one that decided we would leave your intelligence out of this discussion.

smuttybox · 02-24-2007, 12:48 AM

cause we're really nasty

baddog · 02-24-2007, 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

You are one of the few.

Maybe THEMASKEDRIDER = The Lone Ranger

Dirty Dane · 02-24-2007, 08:19 PM

All the talk about the bombings saved lives is just BS, and grandpa propaganda from the 50s & 60s.

The reason the japanese did not surrender was because they were given the terms unconditional surrender. At those times, the emperor was considered a God, and the terms of surrender included that the emperor had to give up his throne. This was impossible and totally unacceptable for the Japanese samurai culture. Truman knew this, but he listened to the public opinion in US instead, they wanted to humiliate Japan as much as possible after all they had done, which somehow was emotional understandable. Japan then negotiated peace with Russia. The Allies had already broken the coded messages between Japan and Russia, and Truman knew that Japan seeked peace, but not unconditional. So instead of going for the diplomatic solution, simply by letting the monarchy stay (which it did afterwards anyway) they dropped the bombs and killed lots of civilians.
Truman and Eisenhower have later admitted they did the wrong thing.

So there were alternativ solutions, and the way they dropped the bombs is also questionable.
Oh yeah, if they went for the diplomatic solution, there would never have been any Russian invasion in Korea and wars later either. Its easy to say that now, but its a fact.

02-23-2007, 10:05 PM	#102
Pleasurepays BANNED - SUPPORTING TUBES Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: I live in a pile of boogers Posts: 11,913	blah blah Last edited by Pleasurepays; 02-23-2007 at 10:07 PM..

02-23-2007, 10:14 PM	#111
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,472	well wikipedia then..states that there was no warning of the nuclear attack i mjean that is what we are talking about..so lets find out. why dont one of you guys look for the facts...a bit further then wikipedia __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io

02-23-2007, 10:33 PM	#121
HEAT Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 2,255	Japanese kiilled millions of innocent Asian people during the war. kidnapped and raped tens of thousands of Asian women, compulsorily drafted 10000's of young men in their colonies under name of their emperor. I believe dropping the bombs SAVED not only lives on both sides but also 1000000's of Asian citizens. __________________ 254-282-542

02-23-2007, 10:58 PM	#129
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	Japan needed a crippling blow. And then another one to show we were not a one hit wonder and that we were totally serious. Japan was under a fanatical regime. They were prepared to fight to the end. An invasion in lieu of the bomb was projected to kill millions. __________________ Boner Money

02-24-2007, 12:28 AM	#146
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 75,196	Seems my figures might be off when I say "five million lives" were saved by the dropping of the bombs. From Wikipedia: Casualty predictions varied widely, but were extremely high for both sides: depending on the degree to which Japanese civilians resisted the invasion, estimates ran into the millions for American casualties and the tens of millions for Japanese casualties. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders

02-23-2007, 10:19 PM	#117
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Japanese civilian deaths ..... Nagasaki ... about 50,000 nuclear Hiroshima ... about 125,000 nuclear Tokoyo ... about 125,000 fire-bombing Conventional bombing would have eventually killed far more, nuclear got their attention and everything ended sooner.

02-23-2007, 11:23 PM	#130
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	Truman officially warned the Japanese government to surrender completely, or suffer "complete and utter destruction." The people of Hiroshima were not warned. The only "warning" they recieved were the 3 planes picked up at radar and some warning about this on Japanese radio broadcast. Since it was a small formation, and they lacked fuel and equipment, they were ordered not to attack the planes. They did not know what was coming. Thats what happened. If the bombings were right or wrong, is another story.

02-24-2007, 12:14 AM	#140
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	I guess the talking up the chicks didn't go over too well.

02-24-2007, 12:48 AM	#148
smuttybox Registered User Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 47	cause we're really nasty

02-24-2007, 08:19 PM	#150
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	All the talk about the bombings saved lives is just BS, and grandpa propaganda from the 50s & 60s. The reason the japanese did not surrender was because they were given the terms unconditional surrender. At those times, the emperor was considered a God, and the terms of surrender included that the emperor had to give up his throne. This was impossible and totally unacceptable for the Japanese samurai culture. Truman knew this, but he listened to the public opinion in US instead, they wanted to humiliate Japan as much as possible after all they had done, which somehow was emotional understandable. Japan then negotiated peace with Russia. The Allies had already broken the coded messages between Japan and Russia, and Truman knew that Japan seeked peace, but not unconditional. So instead of going for the diplomatic solution, simply by letting the monarchy stay (which it did afterwards anyway) they dropped the bombs and killed lots of civilians. Truman and Eisenhower have later admitted they did the wrong thing. So there were alternativ solutions, and the way they dropped the bombs is also questionable. Oh yeah, if they went for the diplomatic solution, there would never have been any Russian invasion in Korea and wars later either. Its easy to say that now, but its a fact.