in this scenario for whatever reason Truman decides not to use the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki or against the Japanese defenses and Operation Downfall occurs, Japan surrenders sometime in 1946 and about 500,000 Americans lose their life in the invasion. Shortly later word gets out to the American public that Truman withheld the use of this super weapon. What would be the political ramifications for Truman? I know he’d at least be impeached, but would there be potential for him being tried for treason? I can’t think of a good reason why Truman wouldn’t use the bomb, because in a reakpolitiks sense, I don’t think he really has a choice since in the eyes of the American public once that weapon is ready, any American that dies fighting japan becomes his fault. I just think a lot of people don’t see it from his point of view that he didn’t have much of a choice in the context of 1945.
What happens to Truman if he didn’t use the atomic bomb?
- Thread starter Bellacinos
- Start date
Frankly I think he'll be impeached, convicted, and likely arrested for what is borderline murder of American soldiers. It doesn't even have to be 500,000 dead. If it was fifty thousand he'd be fucked. Treason is...honestly on the table since by sending American soldiers into an invasion while a war-winning option was still on the table he'd be providing aid and comfort to the enemies of the United States, or at the very least a decent prosecutor could do a damn good job making that case to a jury.
You and me both grandfather was in Okinawa, and was supposed to be in the first wave of marines in the invasion.
Jesus christ.
I occasionally joke about the Marines but I respect the hell out of them.
Yeah, chances are my grandfathers would be killed on their destroyers and the Japanese would proclaim their deaths as the sinking of US battleships
Nothing, thee war become longer, maybe dewey won in 1948 but nothing changes...
Seriously treason? this is why people don't take AH seriously at times
Once you have a million angry mothers discover that they could've had a chance to blast those dirty nips to hell in 1945 avoiding several more years of conflict, I think the Republicans could've begun the proceedings
I think impeachments a long-shot, but not outright impossible. I will say that being drubbed out of the house and cosigned to the dustbin of failed Presidents strikes me as far more likely.
If that does happen though, it's worth noting is that the Republicans can't actually officially impeach Truman for not dropping the bomb. "Deciding not to use a weapon" isn't exactly a impeachable offense, so they'd probably have to hammer him on some other minor thing that everyone knows is a stand-in for him ordering the bomb not to be used. So you'd probably have this whole brand of pedantic amateur historians who'd go "Well, actually Truman was impeached because of his connections with Tom Pendergast" or something, only for everybody else to roll their eyes because they damn well know that wouldn't have gotten Truman impeached if he had at least decided to let the bomb be used.
Certainly, he would not be charged on treason. That has a very stringent legal definition and Truman ordering the bomb to not be used does not meet it.
One interesting argument that might be mounted ATL in Truman's defense, however, is that nobody could be sure that the bomb would convince the Japanese to quit. People leaping to Truman's defense decades down the line might go: "Well, all dropping the bomb would do is add nuclear warfare on top of a already horrific war" and there wouldn't actually be any solid way to prove them wrong. This might not be very convincing in 1948, when a "could've" would be enough for all those grieving widows and mothers, but it could gain some traction once we reach, like, the 1970s or so.
If that does happen though, it's worth noting is that the Republicans can't actually officially impeach Truman for not dropping the bomb. "Deciding not to use a weapon" isn't exactly a impeachable offense, so they'd probably have to hammer him on some other minor thing that everyone knows is a stand-in for him ordering the bomb not to be used. So you'd probably have this whole brand of pedantic amateur historians who'd go "Well, actually Truman was impeached because of his connections with Tom Pendergast" or something, only for everybody else to roll their eyes because they damn well know that wouldn't have gotten Truman impeached if he had at least decided to let the bomb be used.
Certainly, he would not be charged on treason. That has a very stringent legal definition and Truman ordering the bomb to not be used does not meet it.
One interesting argument that might be mounted ATL in Truman's defense, however, is that nobody could be sure that the bomb would convince the Japanese to quit. People leaping to Truman's defense decades down the line might go: "Well, all dropping the bomb would do is add nuclear warfare on top of a already horrific war" and there wouldn't actually be any solid way to prove them wrong. This might not be very convincing in 1948, when a "could've" would be enough for all those grieving widows and mothers, but it could gain some traction once we reach, like, the 1970s or so.
Last edited:
Alright, that's actually a fair point. Thank you for that.
I imagine it'll be a race between the democrats and republicans on who can drop Truman the fastest
Err..nobody know that yet, plus the bomb was not a instant win button, seriously guys you disappoint me at times
After the successful tests of US atomic bombs it seems like ASB to say that we would not use them. During WW2 the US invested a massive amount of money, time, and manpower into the Manhattan Project while Germany apparently spent even more money/time/manpower on the V2 project. The idea that after spending years developing the most destructive weapons in all history--in fact, weapons that literally made all other weapon systems irrelevant once they were deployed--that we would not use them to swiftly end the war with Japan is pretty much unthinkable. If word got out that Truman had access to these amazing weapons and refused to use them, and US soldiers/sailors/airmen kept dying fighting Japan, he would be told either deploy those nukes or you will be swiftly impeached and replaced by someone who will use them. . . Operation Downfall might, just possibly, have started, but it would not go through to its conclusion. Japan would either surrender, unconditionally (except for allowing to keep their emperor as a figurehead, as happened IRL) or it would be nuked until its leaders came to their senses and surrendered.
I mean the very moment people find out the Bomb existed and that it might've saved American bois.
them learn could poison them when touch japan...dudes...people only have imagination and few reports, there was 'ZERO' guaranteed they would surrender.
You think facts will matter to a million dead mothers, all they'll know is there could've been multiple sunrises on Japan that either fries the nips or causes them to surrender.
HOW AND WHO Told them that? was justt a guess, if bombed them and war continue...might make a giant letter of apologies? RL don't work this way, Nukes were a state secret, if anything wonder if japan would fight even more harder them
America sat on chemical stockpiles it could have used on Okinawa and Iwo Jima. No one called for anyone’s head or shouted treason. Everyone expected war to end with an invasion of Japan. And how costly that would be. “Putting our faith into an untested secret weapon is not something I was willing to do” is a perfectly fine response. Sure he’d be less popular. But not a traitor.
I mean post war, the Soviets are still on track to get their own bomb.
By the end of the 40s, people are going to find out.
Yeah and just think if nukes are trully such wunderwaffe, maybe korea goes nuclear and show why truman was resilent...
