No atomic bombings to end World War II

Let's suppose the Manhattan Project happens and everything else in the war occurs as normal. Let's say though, on July 28th, 1945, the Japanese government accepts the terms of the Postdam Declaration.

The US has research atomic weapons and the Soviets have infiltrated the project, but the incredible power of the weapons have not been shown to the world. What happens now?
 

bard32

Banned
Let's suppose the Manhattan Project happens and everything else in the war occurs as normal. Let's say though, on July 28th, 1945, the Japanese government accepts the terms of the Postdam Declaration.

The US has research atomic weapons and the Soviets have infiltrated the project, but the incredible power of the weapons have not been shown to the world. What happens now?

The Japanese government didn't. If it did, the war would have ended much
sooner. Assuming it did, then Hirohito would have given his surrender speech
back on July 28, 1945, and Japan would have surrendered.
 
The Japanese government didn't. If it did, the war would have ended much
sooner. Assuming it did, then Hirohito would have given his surrender speech
back on July 28, 1945, and Japan would have surrendered.
What the hell does this have to do with the original post?:confused:
Get with the f'ing program!

On topic: Well, it could go either way. There could be a massive world war III, probably with all-out nuclear exchange; or the world leaders could realize (even without battlefield usage) that the bomb is too dangerous to even contemplate using, since the other side has it as well, thereby MAD still being valid as in OTL.
However, I do see nuclear weapons usage in the various proxy wars.
 
Use of nukes in Korea perhaps?

It was contemplated OTL I believe and ITL the horrors of such weapons is not yet known. Truman may be more likely to give the go ahead.
 
The bomb still would have been tested at the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range. There is no reason it shouldn't be tested.
 
The Japanese government didn't. If it did, the war would have ended much
sooner. Assuming it did, then Hirohito would have given his surrender speech
back on July 28, 1945, and Japan would have surrendered.

If I read this correctly, you do not have a clue what a what if is, and di not even read the original post.

Now, back to the topic. I wonder whether the Japanese government would do this. The military, at least, seriously believed that they could win a decisive battle in Kyushu when the Americans hit the beaches. They certainly would have tried. Most sources I have seen suggest massive casualties on both sides, but an American victory. They did not know of the Atomic Bomb, ignored the Tokyo firebombing raids, did not believe that they could be starved out (although in hindsight it would be rather easy), and discounted the chances of a Soviet invasion of Manchuria, Korea, and Hokkaido. However, for the sake of this thread, let's assume they come to their senses and do accept the declaration.

Now, this puts the Allies in a bit of a bind. remember, the war in china has always been bitter, and Japan was often seen as the real enemy of the US. On the other hand, this fulfills most of the goals of the allies. I think they accept, and the occupation is similar to OTL.

Now, butterflies. One; the atomic bomb has never been deployed. There will likely be less fear of it, so it is more likely to be employed (it is also more likely to be overlooked by Stalin). Also, since there will be little documentation of the effects of it's radiation for longer, less fear as well. Also, the Soviets have not had time to redeploy their soldiers and launch operation August Storm, so they have less of a hand in Asia. I think Mao eventually falls to Chaing, and the US unites Korea into one republic.
 
Operation August Storm, or the Battle of Manchuria began on August 9, 1945, with the Soviet invasion of the Japanese puppet state of Manchukuo;
It will take a couple days after the surrender for Russia to enter Manchukuo.
Manchuria still becomes a Mao Refuge, and the ChiComs still get all the Jap Weapons.
However the US occupies all of Korea. Therefore no Korean War.

I think the first use of the Bomb will be during the Vietnam War.
Instead of Mining Hiaping Harbor, whe blow the whole city off the map.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
The Japanese government didn't. If it did, the war would have ended much
sooner. Assuming it did, then Hirohito would have given his surrender speech
back on July 28, 1945, and Japan would have surrendered.

Huh?

<useless filler>
 
It will take a couple days after the surrender for Russia to enter Manchukuo.
Manchuria still becomes a Mao Refuge, and the ChiComs still get all the Jap Weapons.
However the US occupies all of Korea. Therefore no Korean War.

I think the first use of the Bomb will be during the Vietnam War.
Instead of Mining Hiaping Harbor, whe blow the whole city off the map.

I think the Soviets will invade Manchuria regardless.

Nuclear weapons will still be used at some point: Vietnam and Korea are both good guesses.

World War III is a lot more likely to break out without Hiroshima and Nagasaki to clearly demonstrate the dangers of nuclear weapons.
 
It will take a couple days after the surrender for Russia to enter Manchukuo.
Manchuria still becomes a Mao Refuge, and the ChiComs still get all the Jap Weapons.
However the US occupies all of Korea. Therefore no Korean War.

I think the first use of the Bomb will be during the Vietnam War.
Instead of Mining Hiaping Harbor, whe blow the whole city off the map.

Um, you mean there is no Korean war because the Russians occupy Korea, right? They did in OTL...and then gave half of it to us, just like we gave half of Japan to them, except we didn't. The Russian army halted on the 38th parallel as per their agreement with us, at our request.
If we are invading Japan, we are not also invading Korea, right? Are we invading Korea before, during, or after our invasion of Japan? Russians are pretty much good whichever way we want to handle it. Korea wasn't big on their list of goals. They were just following our request to get involved in the war with Japan and would have been just as happy to sit it out.
So if we don't ask them to invade Korea, then they don't invade Korea and we get to invade Korea.
 
Last edited:
um, can someone give me info on the Postdam Declaration please? I couldn't find a main wiki article on it.
 
I don't think there would be any real difference at all. US will be testing nukes quite frequently post-war and Soviets would be invited to observe, just to impress them of the big stick US now wield.

As for Korea US would likely split it with the Soviets one way or another. US paid no attention to Korea at the time. The Korea department consisted of two junior officers in a basement. They drew the 38th parallel and submitted it to the Soviets even though the Soviets never reached that far south. The Soviets were very impressed because they had submitted a similar proposal to divide Korea with Japan decades earlier along that line and assumed the Americans did some serious historical research.

US military recognized the Soviets wont be satisfied unless they got a buffer for Vladivostock and nobody wanted a standoff over something trivial, which is what Korea was to US policy at the time.

One effect a non-nuclear end would have is a Dolchstoss effect on the Japanese right wing. As in "our military didn't lose the war, the politicians screwed us over." There would be more Yukio Mishimas around to make the threat of a return to militarism more significant.
 
No Atom Bomb on Japan

If the Japanese had accepted unconditional surrender terms the consequent history might not have been all that different. The only possible divergence point would have been the Berlin blockade. By 1949 the Soviet Union had the bomb, both the USSR and USA knew of the effects of a nuclear weapon, both could produce one so both would be wary of using it in Korea. The USA might have threatened to use it to lift the blockade but they didn't in this timeline so it is probably likely they wouldn't have.

The real question is the consequence of the bomb not being dropped and Japan not accepting the terms. The Soviet Union had agreed to enter the war after a certain date and had actually declared war in the last few days. Japan would have had yet another front to fight on and may well have called it a day. The Japanese were hammered in August 1939 by the Red Army at Nomuhan. However the Soviet Union would have had a bigger influence in the far east. Ronald Clarke's Last Day of the Old World deals with this scenario only Japan fights on.
 
If the Japanese had accepted unconditional surrender terms the consequent history might not have been all that different. The only possible divergence point would have been the Berlin blockade. By 1949 the Soviet Union had the bomb, both the USSR and USA knew of the effects of a nuclear weapon, both could produce one so both would be wary of using it in Korea. The USA might have threatened to use it to lift the blockade but they didn't in this timeline so it is probably likely they wouldn't have.

The real question is the consequence of the bomb not being dropped and Japan not accepting the terms. The Soviet Union had agreed to enter the war after a certain date and had actually declared war in the last few days. Japan would have had yet another front to fight on and may well have called it a day. The Japanese were hammered in August 1939 by the Red Army at Nomuhan. However the Soviet Union would have had a bigger influence in the far east. Ronald Clarke's Last Day of the Old World deals with this scenario only Japan fights on.

Something tells me that Stalin, having never seen the real effects of an atomic bomb outside of a practice range, will not care as much about aquiring them as in OTL.

Now, as for asia. The USSR is not at war with Japan, and will not be for another 11 days in this timeline. The terms of the Potsdam Declaration are such that the Japanese are being evicted from the mainland. There is no real way Stalin can join this party now. Actually invading would be seen as a blatant land grab and a betrayal of the Alliance, and the US and UK might not like that. So the net result of this scenario is the Soviets do not invade China and Korea, thus limiting their influence there. I'd be interested to see what the western allies (plus Chaing Kai-Shek) decide to do with Sakhalin and the Kuril islands.
 
Stalin knew about the project before Truman did (or so popular history has it). I think the Soviets had spies who witnessed the test explosion (which would certainly occur).

At the very least the Americans have acquired a new weapon of considerable power. Not building a similar weapon doesn't seem terribly sensible. As it was I think the Soviets already had a project in place before the nuclear bombs were dropped. With the end of the war it would receive greater funding.

As to the view that the Soviets wouldn't make a landgrab in Asia because.. it would upset the allies.. its freaking Stalin. I don't think the allies appreciated it when he blocked off all the roads to Berlin in 1948. Most likely Stalin would cut a deal of some kind which would secure him the regions anyway. Its not as if the Allies can do much to prevent him moving into them.
 
The key reason Japan might have surrendered to the allies before the bomb, and possibly a factor in its actual surrender was that it did not want a North Japan dominated by Stalin's guys.
 
Top