What would have happened if Truman decided not to drop the atomic bombs?

Question

What would have happened if Truman decided not to drop the atomic bombs?

Answer 1

Probably not much different, except a few more deaths. The top Japanese said it was the combination of the strategic bombing and the entry of the Soviets into the war in Manchuria that made the difference. Note it was the accumulation of all the strategic bombing, not the atom bomb, that they mentioned. It's certain that weighed in, but in August 45 there were other cities destroyed just as effectively as Hiroshima and Nagasaki were. It just took more bombers to do it. If Hiroshima and Nagasaki had been fire-bombed into oblivion, perhaps along with a few more cities, it might have taken a bit longer, and a few hundred thousand more deaths; or perhaps not. It matters very little how you're burned to death, though.

Answer 2

Japan would have had to surrender anyway due to the strangulation of its economic and military forces as a consequence of the US Navy's destruction of its merchant fleet, and the Air Force's destruction of its cities, ports, transports, and manufacturing capacities. Japan could not have physically survived another winter in the conditions it endured in the summer of "45. Mass starvation and disease would have destroyed Japan.



The strategic choice was not whether to use the nuclear weapons or to invade the home islands. There was no formal, solemn decision to drop the bomb, and no thought of when to use it. As soon as it was ready, it was dropped without prior review. It had been decided by the military at the outset of its creation that if the bomb worked, it would be used. No further discussion. That's how it was presented to Truman, and that's why and how it was used.



The inter-military conflict and rivalries within US military forces must be considered when discussing the end game of the Pacific War. There were always two wars being fought, the Navy's amphibious warf, together with its Naval Air campaigns, and MacArther's land war. It was MacArther's staff that did the invasions planning, and the enourmous size and scale of the invasion matched the man's ego and ambition.



Those who would make decisions, though, were in Washington, DC. The Joint Chiefs, and FDR's military advisor (a Navy Admiral), had NO intention of allowing MacArther's fantastic and bloody plans to go forward. Later, when looking back, the invasion plans became a convenient rationale for having used the bomb. Hence the forced but articial choice was presented: Nukes or Invasion.



The alternative of a bloody invasion of Japan is ex post facto rationalization, once the enourmity of nuclear weapons had been comprehended. Truman disucssed later how he had made the decision. What's important to note is why he felt the need to do so in view of the awful consequences and dread of future nuclear weapon exchanges.

Answer 3

The war would have ended soon anyway. The Japanese were already discussing how to surrender and using their contacts in Russia to approach the Allies.

Answer 4

We would have had to invade Japan on the ground. The figures for U.S. casualties by planners estimate that our losses (different planners with different numbers) would have been between 250 thousand to as high as 1 million. That is a big range. Keep in mind though that the number of U.S. killed, wounded, and missing, would be much smaller than the casualties inflicted upon the Japanese. In addition to the actual invasion by foot troops, we would have continued strategic and tactical bombing. Cities would have been leveled, hundreds of thousands of Japanese would have been killed, both military and civilian. I don't think the Japanese would have sued for peace immediately after their "D-Day" or even after a handful of cities were under American occupation.



I would like to respectfully comment on the other posts. All of your answers are "speculative" in the sense that it did not happen. Unlike "what if" history though, these questions are important because decisions were based on formulations at the time. (not what if FDR had never been born, for instance).



I also argue that the post that Japan would have surrendered and that 100,000 would have been saved is also a "what if".



If the Japanese were relying on the goodwill of the Soviets to let them surrender or to negotiate for them to the U.S., then they were barking up the wrong tree. What of the fact that the Soviets also declared war in attempt to gobble up as much Japanese territory before the war ended?



If they would have surrendered, but on their terms (leadership, etc.) well that is not the unconditional surrender that we demanded (we asked the same of Germany, we didn't say, keep Hitler, if he didn't shoot himself, that is speculative and so is this, if he lived we would have executed him at Nuremberg).



I agree that the dropping of the bomb held much impact for the Cold War. We didn't know exactly what the damage would "look like" until we dropped it, we showed the world what we could and would do, and Truman finally made Molotov understand what he meant by "having a missile in his back pocket."

Answer 5

The United States was planning to invade the Japanese mainland. Truman's advisors indicated that the casualties in such an invasion might reach one million men.

Answer 6

As President, Truman made some of the most crucial decisions in history. Soon after V-E Day, the war against Japan had reached its final stage. An urgent plea to Japan to surrender was rejected. Truman, after consultations with his advisers, ordered atomic bombs dropped on cities devoted to war work. Two were Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japanese surrender quickly followed. Although the action undoubtedly saved many American lives by bringing the war to an end, the morality of the decision is still debated.

Answer 7

The Soviets still would have attacked on August 8th, as they had agreed at Yalta to declare war against Japan 3 months after the German surrender, and preparation for the attack had been going on all summer. Japan might have surrendered after the Soviets only needed two weeks to drive them out of Manchuria. In that case things wouldn't have been that different, except that the Red Army would have controlled all of Korea, not just the north half, and they probably would have stayed in Manchuria a lot longer, speeding up the Communist victory in China by a year or two. If Japan still held out, in September the Soviets would have invaded Hokkaido. It probably would have taken them about 2 weeks to take it, with very high casualties among both Japanese soldiers and civilians- quite possibly exceeding the death toll from both atomic bombs. At that point, Japan would have certainly surrendered, if for no other reason than to keep the Soviets out of the rest of their country. At that point, things would have been quite different; Japan would have been divided like Germany, and the Soviet position in eastern Asia would have been much stronger.

Answer 8

Was Japan discussing surrender, yes, was it willing to surrender, no. Japan had already begun training of women and children to defend Japan. I see a very bloody, and traumatic invasion having horrors indescribable in today's world view. I think at least 1,000,000 causalities min on both sides combined.



I also knew two men who were part of the invasion, one on the second wave, the other on the seventh. Both men, until they died, believed the bombs saved not only their lives, but their sanity and souls.



(Also remember that there was no guarantee that the atomic bombs would even work. Many thought it would fail the invasion would have to go ahead as planned.)

Answer 9

Yes the Japanese were discussing surrender but on their terms. They wanted no occupation and no change to their form of government. The militarists would continue to rule and Japan would keep many of their older conquests. Russia did not mediate honestly because Russia wanted to attack Japan and seize Manchuria, Sakhalin Island, the Kuriles and other territories.Ideally even occupy part of Japan itself.



Besides atomic bombs the other options:



A bloody invasion lasting into 1946 at least, with several million casualties, mostly Japanese, all POWs and civilian internees murdered, more loss of life in the areas under occupation - at least 100,000 a month in China



Blockade by air and sea. All coastal shipping cut off by seamines and air strikes. Railroad lines cut at mountain passes. Cities cut off from rice growing areas and coal mines leading to mass starvation and deaths from exposure and disease, loss of electrical power and likely a complete breakdown of civil order.



Using the atomic bombs wasn't even a question in the minds of Truman and his advisers. It was an answer to their prayers for a speedy end to the war.

Answer 10

I for one am not a big fan on speculative questions. Clearly Truman's reasons for dropping the A-bomb lied on two principles: 1) they were fearful of the unneccessary loss of American lives in invading Japan and 2) they were fearful of the Russians making a play on Japan like they did on Eastern Europe. Now people have speculated for many years over what would or would not have happened if Truman did not drop the bomb but at this point it is all moot.

Answer 11

Japan probably would have surrendered, and without an invasion to force it.



Japan had been trying to surrender for some time, they kept going to the Soviet Union and Stalin to get his help in the mediation process. And the only request they had was that the Emperor be allowed to remain in charge; something that was allowed anyway even after the bombs because he was the only one who could order the Japanese troops to stand down.



American leaders FDR and Truman had both been asking Stalin not to give in to the requests by Japan to mediate the surrender, and Stalin decided to not indulge Japan.



The atomic bombs were not meant for knocking Japan out of the war; that could have been done without them. They were for scaring the Soviet Union. America knew that when WWII was over there were only going to be two superpowers, and that they would be at each other's throats. America would not have an ally strong enought on its side to force the Soviet Union into not starting something with America.



Europe and Asia were in shambles, they would be no help. And some were even on the other side, though they were no help to the Soviet Union, either. But there would only be two superpowers, and they would have to rely totally on themselves for a while in any fight.



America intended to have the upper hand in that. And to do that, they needed to show they could overpower the Soviet Union. So they decided to show the power of the Atom bomb by using it on Japan. It was believed that would scare the Soviet Union away out of fear they were next. Unfortunately for America, the Soviet Union came out with their own bomb a couple years later. That is when the Cold War arms race began.



Since the Soviet Union was already working on an atom bomb, nothing really would have changed with or without the use of the A-bomb. But Truman didn't know that. He honestly thought he was doing the right thing in protecting America from the Soviet Union; and he just came up with that whole "invasion of Japan too costly in lives" excuse so that he wouldn't look like a monster for killing all those people just to scare an ally he knew would be an eventual enemy.



The only real change is that over a hundred thousand Japanese people would have lived.

Answer 12

Had they not gone through with the bombing campaign Truman's other strategy was an invasion of The Japanese mainland which many of his advisors were dreading. Estimates report casualties for Allied soldiers would have been anywhere between 250,000 to 1 million and may have prolonged the war to as long as 1947. Much like Adolf Hitler, Emperor Hirohito instilled the mindset in not only the soldiers but also many of the civilians to fight to the last child and civilian casualties may have been even higher.



Most likely the Japanese Emperor would not have been willing to negotiate peace if he had even the most infinitessimal hope or shred of belief that his military could still win the war. The shock and awe of the devestation of the atomic bomb instilled enough fear in him to press for peace.



In retrospect it is horrible that millions of innocent people were maimed and killed but that was the way wars were fought and American people of the time had very little sympathy for the Japanese following the attack on Pearl Harbor. They also wanted a quick and immediate end to the war.



We can only hope that such consequences need not be repeated.

Answer 13

Leibniz - the mathematician said- "What happened in past was the best probability"

Perhaps war would linger long...

Perhaps US would loose supremacy.....

Perhaps untruman was hired......

Perhaps.....

Excuse me.

Answer 14

1. What would have happened? Tremendous carnage of a scale never before seen in that century and the near extinction of Japan as a nation and civilization. Specifically:

--The War Ministry in Tokyo issued an edict that ALL POW's were to be killed before the surrender. Nearly 45% did die in camps (more if you include Asians). But a war that would have lasted 3-6 months longer would have probably resulted in the deaths of ALL Allied POWs. It nearly resulted in deaths of all Chinese POWs (only 56 were alive at war's end) and several camps, all US POWs were killed (burned alive by their captors) while others were put on starvation diets, eaten or beheaded and death rates accelerated. There were even cases of Allied POWs who were beheaded AFTER the Japanese surrender. I can assure you that this would have produced even less tolerance for the Japanese if we'd been involved in an invasion with them as our troops would have come across camps of dead POWs. A friend of mine has an uncle who liberated a POW camp in the Phillipines and that uncle will not buy or use anything that comes from Japan to this day.

--There were have been tremendous US casualties. We estimated 250,000 dead just for the invasion of Kyushu (the southern most island in Japan) and 1,000,000 total. To put that in perspective, our deaths in WW-2 absent this were 418,000 so you're talking about an impact on our nation more than double the existing casualty level. I think the US showed remarkable tolerance for Japan post-war (allowing the Emperor to remain in power, relatively few retributions for war crimes, little financial demands of payment for costs of the war). If we'd had to send in infantry and root out fighters from house to house with the resulting bloodshed and terror, I think we'd have treated Japan differently post-war.

--Japanese casualties would have been through the roof. If we suffered 1 million dead, you can expect their military to suffer worse numbers(which was increasingly turning to suicide attacks, training women to charge our soldiers with bamboo spears, children under 10 to attack tanks with mines which they would blow themselves up with in hopes of taking off a tank tread). You could estimate somewhere between 1.8-3 million dead Japanese "military".

--Japanese civilian deaths would have been horrendous. Here's a stat for you to consider: the first island we captured that had a significant civilian population and was considered Japanese soil was Okinawa (civilians had been evacuated from Iwo Jima). 1/4th of the civilian population on Okinawa believed the lies of the military and killed themselves rather than allow capture by our troops, fearing torture and rape. If even half of that number (ie: only 1/8th) of the Japanese population committed suicide in our invasion than that would have resulted in about 7.5 million civilian deaths. Oh, and you'd better believe that given our experience at Iwo Jima and Okinawa (where Japanese troops burrowed in and forced us to root them out with terrific losses) that our battleships, artillery and ground support aircraft would have heavily prepped all areas before our troops went in. What kind of pounding do you think Tokyo or Kobe would have taken in initial barrages prior to an assault (with resulting civilian casualties)? To project total Japanese deaths (military deaths, civilian suicides, civilian starvation, and "collateral damage") of 12-15 million people is not an unreasonable figure.

--Japan as a Nation would have been a shell of its former self. Ground warfare throughout the entire country would have leveled the cities so they'd all have looked like Hiroshima and Nagasaki absent the radiation. Russia still claims Sakhalin Island as "spoils" from WW-2. With no atomic bomb to prompt a surrender in August, instead a ground war that goes into the Fall, more of Japan would have been captured by the Russians and does anyone doubt that they would have kept it because of the Cold War? Probably all of Korea would have been occupied by Russia as well.



2. But wait, Japan wanted to surrender some people say? Not quite.

--The Allies (including RUSSIA) met at Potsdam in July. Stalin never conveyed any messages from the Japanese. The Allies reached decisions with Japan agreeing that we would FIRST ask the Japanese to surrender and that if the Japanese wouldn't surrender we would use our secret weapon and then Russia would invade. So after Potsdam, per the agreement, the US asked Japan to surrender. If they wanted to surrender so much, why didn't they then? This was prior to the use of ANY of the atomic bombs, prior to Russia's invasion.

--The idea that they were seriously negotiating with the Russians is, well, naive and silly. For starters, they weren't at war with the Russians until August. They couldn't possibly surrender to the Russians. It would have been like Germany suddenly declaring that WW-2 was over, can't invade Berlin because they'd just surrendered to the Swiss! Additionally, the Japanese had a FINE record of negotiation in WW-2. They were negotiating with the US when they bombed Pearl Harbor. Seriously--we were in active, on-going negotiations with them and they attacked us. Why would the Russians take their initiatives seriously--they suffered a surprise attack from the Japanese in the Sino-Soviet war and didn't trust them either. Just how much credibility does anyone really think their negotiations would have had? The idea that all they wanted was their emperor is also naive because they surrendered to us eventually unconditionally (ie: the continuation of the emperor was only AFTER the surrender).

--Remember, we asked them to surrender first before we did anything. They refused. We dropped the first bomb and asked them to surrend. They refused. The Russians declared war on them and invaded and they still refused to surrender. We dropped the second bomb on them and they refused to surrender. The Emperor then personally intervened saying that it was time to surrender. Militarists then held an attempted coup to prevent the surrender. This does not sound like a leadership ready to surrender if only we'd have thrown them a concession or two.



Using the atomic bomb was horrific. But a land invasion of Japan would have completely leveled the country, kill millions of people, resulted in Russian occupation of perhaps as much as half of their territory, earned tremendous hatred and ill-will from the US and resulted in the deaths of nearly a million American soldiers while prolonging the war by about 6 months to a year. Unless the Japanese had surrendered before we conquered all of their territory (in which case not as many people die). But the argument that they were ready to surrender but we wanted to drop the bomb first is just plain wrong. It makes a nice conspiracy theory but the agreements at Potsdam disprove it all.