|
Join Writer Development Section Writer Development Member Section
This Day in Alternate History Blog
|
What
if the Atomic Bomb had not been dropped? This grew out of a debate on
the use of the A-Bomb. The use of two atomic bombs on
Japan in 1945 is popularly supposed to have ended the war, by convincing the
Japanese that further resistance was futile.
However, the bomb had dreadful – and not perhaps unexpected – effects
on the Japanese people, many of whom were innocent victims.
This article attempts to answer two questions; a) was the use of the
atomic bomb justified and b) what would have happened if the bomb had not been
used. In May 1945, when Germany
surrendered, Japan was on the ropes. The
USSR mounted a surprise attack (it is debatable how surprising that attack was,
but the Japanese on the ground were surprised) into Manchuria and ended the
Japanese ‘Manchurian dream’ forever. The
Kwangtang army was weakened by the need for home defence and could offer no
effective resistance to the soviet hordes. At sea, the US was dominant.
The Japanese navy had been crushed and their sea borne supply lines had
been cut off. In the air, Japan was
being regularly firebombed and starved – the Japanese were in physical danger
of racial extinction. Any sane
government would have surrendered after Iwo Jima. But the Japanese government was
not sane, at least not by western standards.
They still (!) believed in victory, or believed that if they held out
long enough, the US would accept something short of total humiliation.
The US could have made such an offer.
Without that, the Japanese defeat was inevitable, even without the
predicted US invasion. Therefore,
militarily, the use of the A-Bomb was unnecessary and effectively pure spite. Strategically, through, the
scene was not so rosy. The USSR was
slowly showing its true colours and taking over Eastern Europe.
The US people were demanding demilitarision and a return to civilian
life. If Stalin waited two years,
the USSR’s forces would be able to take most of Europe without much
difficulty. Meanwhile, Stalin had
the chance to seize northern China and Korea, and the US had nothing that could
stop them – except the threat of the bomb.
Strategically, therefore, there were excellent reasons to display the
power of the awesome new weapon. These
period quotes show that this conclusion was justified. "I cannot speak for the
others but it was ever present in my mind that it was important that we have an
end to the war before the Russians came in...Neither the President nor I
were anxious to have them (the Soviets) enter the war after we had learned of
this successful (atomic) test." (James Byrnes, Secretary of State 1945-47) "Mr. Byrnes did not
argue that it was necessary to use the bomb against the cities of Japan in order
to win the war...Mr. Byrnes view (was) that our possessing and demonstrating the
bomb would make Russia more manageable in Europe." (Leo Szilard,
Nuclear Physicist) "The use of the atomic
bombs was precipitated by a desire to end the war in the Pacific by any means before
Russia's participation. I'm sure if President Roosevelt had still been there,
none of that would have been possible." (Albert Einstein) I cannot, however, approve of
the choice of target. The US
cold-bloodedly decided to target a city (The first choices of targets for
nuclear weapons were: a. Kyoto, b. Hiroshima, c. Yokohama, d. Kokura Arsenal.);
I would have selected a military base, such as Truk, which would have impressed
Stalin more than a city, but that’s water under the bridge. Therefore, I have concluded that
the use of the atomic bomb was justified under the circumstances, although the
choice of target was bad. Now, what if the Atomic Bomb had
not been dropped? On 1945.5.10, the
UC choose the targets for the weapon, as noted above.
Meanwhile, Joseph Grew, undersecretary of the State Department, predicted
that the Japanese would surrender to President Truman, while some of the
scientists from the Atomic bomb project, including Szilard, expressed their
opinions against use of the A-bomb to J. Byrnes, Presidential advisor.
In OTL, their concerns were rejected, lets assume that the combination of
the perceived imminent Japanese surrender and the concerns raised by those who
know the bomb technology best causes President Truman to withhold authority to
deploy the weapon. This does not affect the
military situation much; Japan is still in serious trouble and is inching slowly
towards surrender. However, the
Soviets may not give them that time. Without
a formal surrender, Stalin’s forces have the chance to take all of Korea and
they do. The US is annoyed, but is
unable to prevent it from happening. Worse,
the Soviets launch a gamble and use a ragtag fleet to transport a few thousand
troops to Hokkaido. Faced with an
invasion by their old foes, the Japanese surrender to the USA. The US demands that the Soviets
withdraw, but Stalin refuses and uses the time given by the surrender to
reinforce his forces on Hokkaido. There
is a real danger of war breaking out between the two superpowers, but the
diplomats patch together an agreement – The soviets will be allowed to occupy
Hokkaido and administer part of Tokyo. They
also agree to a timetable for withdrawing from China, Manchuria and Korea,
although Stalin has no intention of keeping that agreement. Some timelines I’ve seen along
similar lines have the soviets never developing the bomb themselves.
I don’t think that’s likely. The
spy ring in the Manhattan project had reported to Stalin that the atomic bomb
was a workable weapon and provided his scientists with many of the details about
its construction, a soviet bomb would probably appear not much later than OTL,
with a British and French bomb coming later.
The British are very aware that a bomb can be built and the commonwealth
may have more incentive to build the bomb. I suspect that the soviets would
be bolder with their communising programme.
They would annex their part of Iran and add it to the USSR.
They would install puppet governments on Manchuria and Korea, which would
lead to a bloody war with the ChiComms and the Chinese Nationalists. The west would have more
difficulties with rebuilding. They
would need to maintain a very powerful military force in Germany to prevent
Stalin from getting any ideas, as the power of the bomb would not have been so
forcibly impressed into their minds. France
might find itself no longer in a position to quit NATO and may discover that it
can’t afford a long war in Algeria. The
soviets would also be more able to oppose Germanys rearmerant if it’s
perceived to be in a stronger position vis a vis the west. I suspect that Truman would face
a serious challenge at home. An
atomic bombing of Japan is the only thing that would justify the expense of the
Manhattan Project. If this expense were not justified, Truman would have faced a
Congressional inquiry into the misappropriation of $2 billion. Not only did he
want to avoid Congressional hearings, but he also wanted another term of office.
His chances of re-election would have been reduced if it were learned by the
general public that he wasted money and American lives by not deploying a weapon
that could have ended the war more quickly.
It would also not present a lesson in the willingness of the US to use
weapons of mass destruction. The world would be a far less
safe place without the use of the bomb in 1945.
Therefore, I believe that we can claim that the use of the bomb was
justified, under the circumstances. Thoughts?
|