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.
> > > 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.