No Atomic Bombs For Japan

The real reason for the dropping of the atomic bombs was to show those back in the US that there was a point in spending billions developing them and to scare the Soviets away from starting WW3 right away.
Also it was the only chance the US military would get to test them on live targets. With peace being imminent they had a short window of opportunity.

I can't believe it took a whole 18 posts for this to come up. For these kinds of threads, that's got to be something of a record.:rolleyes:
 
Even if we never carried out the atomic bomb attacks, Japan's economic situation was so dire that there would have been a cessation of hostilities even before the start of Operation Olympic. It's likely that the first elements of the British Tiger Force air fleet would have arrived in the Far East and may have participated in bombing raids on western Honshu and Kyushu from Okinawa and other islands in the Ryukyu Islands chain, using the newly-operational Avro Lincoln bomber. The cities of Kagoshima, Miyazaki, Kumamoto, and Nagasaki and the naval base at Sasebo would have have been primary targets for the first Tiger Force raids.

We know that Japan was using third-party intermediaries to find a way to end the war; it wouldn't surprise me that there would be an agreement to end the war by middle to late October 1945.
 
And who in the US both knew about them and had to be impressed?

Post-war when the veil of secrecy lifted people would ask questions of the many billions that were wasted on a wonder weapon that was never used when GI Tom, Dick and Harry could have used better equipment.

I'm curious too, since Trinity alone both proved the Bomb worked and showed what it could do.
It showed it could make a big, secret, and easily forged explosion. Didn't really show its effect on an enemy city and civilian population. Certainly didn't show that the US now apparently had such weapons as almost standard issue.
 
We know that Japan was using third-party intermediaries to find a way to end the war; it wouldn't surprise me that there would be an agreement to end the war by middle to late October 1945.

The Japanese were attempting to 'end the war' with their forces (what remained) intact. They seemd to think that they could negotiate a ceasefire that would leave the empire intact including their hold on Manchuria. They did not seem to understand that the only end that was acceptable to the allies was surrender.

I don't think the collapse of the economy and potential starvation would convince the Army (who held the power in Japan) to give up while their was a command structure left to send forces against the enemy. I believe without the shock of the A-bomb only an actual invasion and forcible occupation would have ended the war
 
Given the nature of the war in general and transporting ones self to that time.

If the bombs were not used.. Japan was still doomed.. the only real issue would be after the war. The United States is sitting on a new powerful weapon that it has not used in a war setting.

How would this effect Soviet - Western Relations.
would this cause better or worse relations.. The Soviets already knew about the bomb from spies, but no one had seen it in action. would this make the soviets less fearful and more cooperative or more aggressive as they would feel that they have the advantage. also this could mean more western troops stay in Europe to counter any possible Soviet move.

Would this open the gate to it being used when or if Korea transpires..
 
Without the atomic bombs the complication will not be an invasion, but the war simply being extended a couple of months at most. It's an interesting intellectual exercise, but I don't think it would realistically happen.
That's often brought up, but people tend to use too much hindsight when they say that, and forget that there was already detailed plans and an invasion date for the invasion of Japan. If we don't have nuclear weapons, I think there's a very strong chance we would invade the country.
 
Post-war when the veil of secrecy lifted people would ask questions of the many billions that were wasted on a wonder weapon that was never used when GI Tom, Dick and Harry could have used better equipment.
What was there that the scrap metal drives, Liberty Bonds, and the budgets of the United States Government could not take care of themselves? They might as well just have canceled all the aid to the Soviets during the war since they paid for none of it and claimed they built it all. Would that get enough for the GIs?
 
Hmmm what would have happened if the Soviets hadn't for whatever reason declared war on Japan? Or do they to much to gain by doing so?

The Soviets get the former Russian possessions of the Kuril Islands and Karafuto (southern Sakhalin).

The Soviets also got to occupy Manchuria and northern Korea. This allowed them to set up the Communist regime of North Korea; it also allowed them to hand over Manchuria to the Chinese Communists.

It's not clear to me how much Stalin really cared about either of these latter goals; both were gains for Communism, but neither was a gain for the USSR as such.

If scholars had access to the internal papers of the Soviet government 1944-1945... we might find out what internal discussion there was about Soviet participation in the Pacific War. By then it was obvious the Allies would defeat Japan without Soviet assistance. But only the USSR could deploy large ground forces against Japan on the Asian mainland. Roosevelt considered Soviet participation very important, and was correspondingly accommodating to Soviet desires in other areas.

The Soviets almost certainly could have had the Kuriles and Karafuto for free after the Japanese surrender. The Manchurian campaign didn't cost the Soviets much compared to the European war, but it still cost something, and one would think that by 1945, even Stalin would want to avoid further losses if possible.

So what were Stalin and his advisors thinking? Why did he agree to join the Pacific War? Also, by the time the Soviets actually intervened, the Bomb had been dropped, and they could have gracefully backed out. Instead Stalin pushed the planned invasion ahead about 10 days to get in before Japan surrendered.

Why did Stalin go ahead? Inquiring minds wonder...
 
The Japanese were attempting to 'end the war' with their forces (what remained) intact. They seemd to think that they could negotiate a ceasefire that would leave the empire intact including their hold on Manchuria. They did not seem to understand that the only end that was acceptable to the allies was surrender.

I don't think the collapse of the economy and potential starvation would convince the Army (who held the power in Japan) to give up while their was a command structure left to send forces against the enemy. I believe without the shock of the A-bomb only an actual invasion and forcible occupation would have ended the war.

The Japanese militarists clung to the idea that if they could just inflict enough casualties on the U.S., it would demoralize the U.S. and they would agree to a negotiated settlement. Their last hope for this was if the U.S. invaded the Home Islands. The Japanese internal discussions are full of bravado about how the fanatical determination of Japanese troops (including the masses of civilians to be used in banzai attacks) would cause such casualties if the Americans set foot on the Home Islands.

But if the U.S. refused to invade, and just left Japan to collapse... the militarists had no answer to that. (And the question was raised - but evaded and dismissed.)
 
Myth making on Japanese "surrender"

Yes, via the Swedish Ambassador, feelers were sent outby the civilian side of the Japan gov't...but the military had no intention of surrendering. This difference is the cause of much debate about the use of nukes to end the war: whether it was necessary or not. Many/most/lots of writers on this believe Japan was "waiting" to surrender. Others feel this is hogwash. The Japanese terms for negotiations were as noted above to keep the empire in tact and the gov't 'as is'. They might of been willing, some of these writers note, to forgo the actual 'empire' but not the Imperial rule (military rule).

The conditions of the Japanese people, regardless of how the war dragged on would be terrrible, perhaps --- perhaps worse that what was inflicted on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, though it's impossible to tell. What would of been worse would be for the invasion to take place. The JIA was not about to "collapse".
 
I don't believe that the planned invasion would ever have gone forward. It was scheduled for November 1, 1945, which meant that the aircraft, supplies and shipping for the invasion would have been gathering at Okinawa just in time for typhoon Louise to hit on October 9.

The damage from that would certainly have delayed the invasion and probably canceled it until the next window of opportunity with the right combination of tides, moon phase and decent weather. Which wasn't until Spring of 1946.

The end result is that the US would have fallen back on blockade and bombardment to bring the war to an end with mass starvation in the Japanese home islands.

Using the atomic bombs almost certainly saved the lives of 10's of millions of Japanese civilians.
 
There was almost a coup against Hirohito when he was going to surrender; we shouldn't discount the power of honor fuelled crazy in world events.
 
Post-war when the veil of secrecy lifted people would ask questions of the many billions that were wasted on a wonder weapon that was never used when GI Tom, Dick and Harry could have used better equipment.

People would ask why the weapons were never used when it could have saved the lives of so many American and Allied soldiers.

It showed it could make a big, secret, and easily forged explosion. Didn't really show its effect on an enemy city and civilian population. Certainly didn't show that the US now apparently had such weapons as almost standard issue.

Secret? Easily FORGED explosion? You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory. But if said theories are to serve to show the entire US military and civilian leadership in Washington to be unrelenting and unrepentant war criminals...

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people out there willing to talk out of both sides of their mouths regarding America's relationship to the USSR in WWII. Out of one side, they say FDR was slavishly devoted to Stalin, unquestioning of his motives while sticking it to the British at every opportunity. And out of the other side of their mouths they say Roosevelt was committing billions of US dollars and enormous resources to build an atomic weapon (that may not even work) for the sole purpose of frightening "Uncle Joe".:rolleyes:

BTW? If Trinity works, the Bomb HAS to be used. Truman would have been impeached if it wasn't. Just saying. The US is not a military dictatorship. The generals did not have the final say. Otherwise, Kyoto would have been the first target. And portraying the decision makers of the time like "we wanna see what it does to people" is pretty blatant trolling IMVHO.:mad:

What was there that the scrap metal drives, Liberty Bonds, and the budgets of the United States Government could not take care of themselves? They might as well just have canceled all the aid to the Soviets during the war since they paid for none of it and claimed they built it all. Would that get enough for the GIs?

Um, the Soviets DID pay for at least SOME of their Lend Lease. They certainly had the gold to spare, after all. As to claims that THEY built it, no. The nature of the American manufacture of Studebbaker locomotives, General Motors trucks, uniforms, P-38s, and such were too obvious too ignore. But as far as the Soviets were concerned (and quite properly, I would say), the blood expended using that aid was still Russian.:(

But they DID engage in some pretty nasty knavery, by claiming that a lot of the lesser aid (cigarettes, chocalate bars, frex) were gifts raised by the CPUSA.:mad:

The Soviets get the former Russian possessions of the Kuril Islands and Karafuto (southern Sakhalin).

The Soviets also got to occupy Manchuria and northern Korea. This allowed them to set up the Communist regime of North Korea; it also allowed them to hand over Manchuria to the Chinese Communists.

It's not clear to me how much Stalin really cared about either of these latter goals; both were gains for Communism, but neither was a gain for the USSR as such.

If scholars had access to the internal papers of the Soviet government 1944-1945... we might find out what internal discussion there was about Soviet participation in the Pacific War. By then it was obvious the Allies would defeat Japan without Soviet assistance. But only the USSR could deploy large ground forces against Japan on the Asian mainland. Roosevelt considered Soviet participation very important, and was correspondingly accommodating to Soviet desires in other areas.

The Soviets almost certainly could have had the Kuriles and Karafuto for free after the Japanese surrender. The Manchurian campaign didn't cost the Soviets much compared to the European war, but it still cost something, and one would think that by 1945, even Stalin would want to avoid further losses if possible.

So what were Stalin and his advisors thinking? Why did he agree to join the Pacific War? Also, by the time the Soviets actually intervened, the Bomb had been dropped, and they could have gracefully backed out. Instead Stalin pushed the planned invasion ahead about 10 days to get in before Japan surrendered.

Why did Stalin go ahead? Inquiring minds wonder...

Because Stalin got bit by the Imperialist bug?:D And when they left Manchuria, they didn't leave two sticks nailed together. The Nazis had taught them well on how to loot a country.

I don't believe that the planned invasion would ever have gone forward. It was scheduled for November 1, 1945, which meant that the aircraft, supplies and shipping for the invasion would have been gathering at Okinawa just in time for typhoon Louise to hit on October 9.

The damage from that would certainly have delayed the invasion and probably canceled it until the next window of opportunity with the right combination of tides, moon phase and decent weather. Which wasn't until Spring of 1946.

The end result is that the US would have fallen back on blockade and bombardment to bring the war to an end with mass starvation in the Japanese home islands.

Using the atomic bombs almost certainly saved the lives of 10's of millions of Japanese civilians.

Anyone can speculate on when the Japanese would surrender, and/or face the facts of their economic collapse, which would have co-incided with the invasion date. Once the economy goes, Japanese troops are basically just fighting where they are. No possible offensives, just fighting it out and being destroyed in detail. Also, one is free to speculate about typhoons, but I would think that the Allies would be more resiliant than the Korean Allied fleets of Kublai Khan.:rolleyes:

That the atom bombs saved millions of Japanese lives over Downfall or an axtended blockade is obvious to anyone who can see the numbers involved.

There was almost a coup against Hirohito when he was going to surrender; we shouldn't discount the power of honor fuelled crazy in world events.

You can if you want to.:rolleyes:
 
What was there that the scrap metal drives, Liberty Bonds, and the budgets of the United States Government could not take care of themselves? They might as well just have canceled all the aid to the Soviets during the war since they paid for none of it and claimed they built it all. Would that get enough for the GIs?
If I know anything about American politics its that in the eyes of average conservative leaning voters the GIs can never have enough.

People would ask why the weapons were never used when it could have saved the lives of so many American and Allied soldiers.
Thats what I meant yes.
The creation of the myth of the bombs being the weapon that won the war turned a potential PR disaster into a success of American ingenuity.

Secret? Easily FORGED explosion? You are getting dangerously close to conspiracy theory territory. But if said theories are to serve to show the entire US military and civilian leadership in Washington to be unrelenting and unrepentant war criminals...

It never ceases to amaze me the number of people out there willing to talk out of both sides of their mouths regarding America's relationship to the USSR in WWII. Out of one side, they say FDR was slavishly devoted to Stalin, unquestioning of his motives while sticking it to the British at every opportunity. And out of the other side of their mouths they say Roosevelt was committing billions of US dollars and enormous resources to build an atomic weapon (that may not even work) for the sole purpose of frightening "Uncle Joe".:rolleyes:

Its getting close to conspiracy theory territory as that is what it would be if it was never used in practice. You would get a lot of people questioning whether this secret military test really had happened as the government claims. The soviets in particular would have doubts.
Even assuming everyone believes the US has a collection of super bombs, a hole in the desert wouldn't quite be enough for a good understanding of what they're capable of to sink in.

I never said FDR was devoted to Stalin.
And no. I never said the weapon was developed solely for frightening the soviets. It was originally developed to win the war- it arrived too late to do so. Hence its only practical use IOTL was as a show of force to the soviets.

BTW? If Trinity works, the Bomb HAS to be used. Truman would have been impeached if it wasn't.
Well yes, that's my entire point. The US didn't need to use it to win the war. Politically however they didn't have much choice.

Just saying. The US is not a military dictatorship. The generals did not have the final say. Otherwise, Kyoto would have been the first target. And portraying the decision makers of the time like "we wanna see what it does to people" is pretty blatant trolling IMVHO.:mad:

It isnt' trolling no. Why do you think the US did all those post-war tests with fake towns, old battle ships, etc....
It wasn't enough to see an explosion in an empty desert, the value of seeing its actual effect in the field was high. You actually get comments to this effect in the aftermath of the bombings. This wasn't enough of a reason to drop the bomb on its own, such decisions are rarely made for simplistic simple reasons, but it was a minor factor.
Whether they did this to Japan where they wouldn't have been willing to do it to Germany...there things get into iffy territory and the question of quite how racist/crazy/anti-Japanese the US was at the time arrises. Thats going way off topic. Lets not go there.
 
Last edited:
Why did Stalin go ahead? Inquiring minds wonder...

Because he knew Japan was easy pickings by this point, that Japan was doomed anyways, and that the benefits of joining far outweighed the benefits of just sitting around and not getting anything. He pushed the date ahead because he was worried (rather correctly) that the atom bomb would speed up Japan's surrender.

In any case, Japan likely surrenders later after famine sets in and the Soviets seize Hokkaido. November 1945, at the latest. The Korean Peninsula becomes entirely the domain of Kim Il-Sung, although with Seoul in Soviet hands (and thereby less disruption to the Korean communist party) we might not see the same craziness as we do from IOTLs North Korea.

Hokkaido likely becomes some kind of Soviet puppet state as well, although there won't be a "Japanese War" or anything like that... American naval power will see too that. OTOH, that might push the Soviets to build up their own surface fleets earlier then IOTL during the Cold War.

Japan itself will recover quite a bit more slowly then IOTL for that matter.
 
No atomic bombs for Japan means a World War II in the Pacific that lasts a lot longer and has far more casualties on both sides including far more civilian casualties in Japan.

The atomic bombs leveled two cities. We had about destroyed Japan with conventional bombing. No atomic bombs would have meant much more conventional bombing making it even harder for Japan to rebuild after the war. They would have had nothing to rebuild or rebuild with.

It has been said before, but a massive ground invasion of Japan would have been extremely costly in terms of human casualties. Yes the atomic bombs killed, injured, and sickened a lot of people but those two atomic bombs saved a lot of lives on both sides, a lot more than they killed.
 
Whether they did this to Japan where they wouldn't have been willing to do it to Germany...there things get into iffy territory and the question of quite how racist/crazy/anti-Japanese the US was at the time arrises. Thats going way off topic. Lets not go there.
They originally were building them to use on the Germans, they just ran out of time.
 
Top