No nukes

Lets say, that the Manhattan project was ready only at 1946 and not 1945. Basicly a year later then what really happened.


I picked the year 1946, since this was also the year when the Soviet neutrality pack with Japan endet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Japanese_Neutrality_Pact


I also think it is possible, considering tha the "real nukes" also know as the hydron boms were really ready and operational only about 10-years after Hiroshima

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_bomb


So the Manhattan project drags onto to the year 1946, what happens?


One option always is, that America is willing to except a conditional surrender from Japan. Japan was not really a "Nazi allie" since they did not join into Hitlers barbarossa campaign against the Soviet Union like Italy, wich before this also joined in Hitlers war against France. Is taking over the western colonies like Indochina, Indonesia and the Philipines such a great sin, that is justifies the demand for unconditional surrender? We also know that Pearl Harbour was purposely provoked, and not even the first time such a thing happened!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nges-Allied-claims-solely-passenger-ship.html


If the allies demand uncondititional surrender, do they really have a realistic change of finising the war before the Soviet Union joins in the fight? Anglo-Saxon allied forces are basicly left with two alternatives;letting the Soviet Union to join the war and take Hokkaido, or settle for conditional surrender where Japan loses ALL the imperial colonies, but avoids allied occpuation and warcrime charges(and is also forced to pay some kind of compensation) Wich will they choose:confused:
 
Last edited:
actually in reality, some historians argue that it was in fact the Soviet declaration of war on Japan in 1945 that was the primary deciding factor for the Japanese high command and the emperor to surrender unconditionally, not the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So it is possible that the war would have ended very similarly, except that there may not have been as strong a pacifistic attitude in Japanese culture.

Also, I have no reason to see why the US would be any less inclined to want to get an unconditional surrender from Japan, after all, the Japanese were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor, and their troops in China were most definetly brutal and sadistic in their treatment of POW's and civilians, so there would definetly be a feeling that the nation of Japan has a price to pay for its crimes.
 
actually in reality, some historians argue that it was in fact the Soviet declaration of war on Japan in 1945 that was the primary deciding factor for the Japanese high command and the emperor to surrender unconditionally, not the bombs dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. So it is possible that the war would have ended very similarly, except that there may not have been as strong a pacifistic attitude in Japanese culture.

Also, I have no reason to see why the US would be any less inclined to want to get an unconditional surrender from Japan, after all, the Japanese were the ones who attacked Pearl Harbor, and their troops in China were most definetly brutal and sadistic in their treatment of POW's and civilians, so there would definetly be a feeling that the nation of Japan has a price to pay for its crimes.

Stalin has indeed made a secret deal with the allies to declare war on Japan. Without allied military aid he never would have won Stalingrad against Hitler, but then again, without Japanese neutrality that aid would have never gotten through to Siberia. The Japanese Soviet neutrality pact is officially do to expire in 1946, and no allied atom bombs to rush Stalin to end the war quikcly.


So do the allies still demand absolute and unconditional surrender? And assuming they do, will Stalin betray Japan, knowing the atom project(wich by this time has already been breached by KGB spies)wont be ready for atleast 12 months:confused:
 
Stalin has indeed made a secret deal with the allies to declare war on Japan. Without allied military aid he never would have won Stalingrad against Hitler, but then again, without Japanese neutrality that aid would have never gotten through to Siberia. The Japanese Soviet neutrality pact is officially do to expire in 1946, and no allied atom bombs to rush Stalin to end the war quikcly.


So do the allies still demand absolute and unconditional surrender? And assuming they do, will Stalin betray Japan, knowing the atom project(wich by this time has already been breached by KGB spies)wont be ready for atleast 12 months:confused:

Given how easily Societ forces OTL crushed the depleted Japanese forces in Manchuria, I fail to see why Stalin would fail to invade: AFAIK, the timing of the US atomic attack had no influence on the timing of the already planned for invasion, which the Allies had pushed for at Potsdam. One likely result is that Stalin occupies all of Korea, and may be willing to push for an occupation zone in Japan as a quid pro quo for allowing the US a hand in Korea.

Bruce
 
Top