This is a bit of an Ask Historians question.
I’ve been reading about the Japanese surrender on Wikipedia, and one thing I thought was strange was that the post-war occupation of Japan was largely handled only by the US under MacArthur. The original plan during the war was apparently for the Allies to divide it, but somehow the plan changed. Stalin allegedly wanted to occupy Hokkaido, Japan’s northern island, but Truman was opposed and it didn’t happen.
Contrast this to Germany (an East-West split than lasted for decades) and Austria (an East-West split, but the Soviets didn’t block full Austrian independence after a relatively short period. In Asia, the Japanese-controlled areas were mostly returned - China received Taiwan, coastal China in the south and east and Manchuria in the northeast. The Soviet Union retook Sakhalin island, just north of Hokkaido. Korea had been occupied by Japan for a few decades, and rather than Japan, it was Korea that was split between the Soviets and the US and shortly after became DPRK and ROK, transitioning into the Korean War as we know it, and the Korean peninsula is still split.
Japan, I think, fared reasonably well - the US were largely gone within ten years (but with a presence of military bases), and even during the occupation, Japan still technically governed themselves. I think it could have potentially gone much worse if the Soviets were involved, but the reasons for Soviet non-involvement are not very clear.
I would like other opinions on this, maybe it should be its own post somewhere, and please do not think that I am in any way excusing the horror of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but what do people think of the idea that if the U.S. had not dropped those bombs, a larger-scale nuclear exchange, possibly between the Soviets and the U.S., would have happened because no one would have seen the consequences in 1945.
Again, not an excuse for what happened. I just wonder if that was what stopped a future nuclear exchange.
> > > what do people think of the idea that if the U.S. had not dropped those bombs, a larger-scale nuclear exchange, possibly between the Soviets and the U.S., would have happened because no one would have seen the consequences in 1945. > >
I still think the use of the atomic bombs on Japan was inherently immoral and unjustifiable, but if I’m searching for at least some silver lining, I do think it’s almost certainly true that if those two comparatively small bombs weren’t dropped then, more and larger bombs would have been dropped later.
Speculative history is just that, speculation. My guess is that, if not Japan, then Korea would’ve been the “field test” of nuclear weapons, since it was the first indirect conflict between the two major power blocs
Full disclosure, I have no idea what I’m talking about.
I don’t know if it would have been a larger scale exchange, but I think that it would have affected the US population more, as it may have been on US soil.
Had USA not sort of kinda of forced japan’s hand, with all the restrictions/resource cutoff, it’s possible none of it would have happened at all. Japan was in no way innocent, but USA had a hand in it happening the way it did, and then some.