How are you the only one to point that out?😂 I was going to but saw this. It’s not a big deal by any means but it is rather hilarious. And only 13 likes? Fuck these people.
I Actually believe that this time line might increase the post war sympathy towards the Nazi government in germany significantly. All the german Generals and Nazi officials who survived the war would spin the entire 2nd world war onto a campaign that mainly focused on protecting europe from the communists, and would excuse their numerous Invasions of other countries as necessary to secret ressources and to unite europe to fight the true enemy. They already tried to spin the narrative into this direction in reality, but with the soviets actually attacking the allies so soon after the defeat of the axis powers, the allies might actually truly start to believe that they fought the wrong guys.
This sounds very similar to a “What if Trotsky led the USSR” theory where Russia invades Western Europe in order to spread the world commune and stop fascism. In this timeline, Nazism actually endures as an ideology, since Germany is actually invaded by the “Communist Jews” they were so scared of.
It wouldn't be that much of a "spin" since that was also the reality. I can't look it up right now so forgive me if I'm mis-remembering, but wasn't the Communist Party the second largest in Germany in the late 1920's? I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken when I say the Soviets did attack the Allies -- in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, something everyone was supposed to forget. I can't help but think their treatment of the Warsaw Pact countries after the war might also make the "protecting Europe from the communists" spin a little more believable.
@@dantecaputo2629 well, nobody really had an issue with ihnoring the armenian genocide or the genocides (plural) vommitted by the japanese after the war. I find it hard to believe that anyone would care about the nazi genocide if there was a bigger issue.
The Cold War in a nutshell: “I can end your nation in minutes” “ I can too” “ Ight then I won’t shoot if you don’t” “Ok” Rinse and repeat for half a decade
@@notlogical4016 true but whats the point? Nobody wins in a nuclear war. Unless you like being locked up in a bunker for the rest of your life sure i guess
@@emelgiefro mistake and errors could happen, let not forget that. Personally I rather have a world with more war but no nuclear weapon so at least the world doesn't end.
The Soviet Union would not have the industrial and military capabilities to start a New World War in the 1950's, as they would not have enough manpower to create sufficient reserves and replace casualties. During the Second World War the Soviet Union contrary to the popular myth of "infinite Soviet manpower", experienced manpower shortages as early as 1943. Statistics published by Russian author Sergei Nikolaevich Mikhalev on reservist numbers show us that from 1941 to 1943, the number of available reservists and combat-fit men decreased from 31,500,000 men (1941) to *6,670,000 men* ( September 1st, 1942 ). This tells us that *the USSR "lost" 18,069,000 men ( 75% percent of its available manpower ) from 1941 to late 1942* mostly due to loss of territory but also overall combat casualties. From late 1942 onwards they emptied the prisons, stripped the Navy of personnel, and conscripted 17 year olds to fill army ranks. *Considering that in this timeline the Soviets would undertake what would probably be an extremely bloody invasion of Northern Japan, Soviet losses would be even more devastating than in our timeline, the USSR would only have the capability to fight another World War at least in the early 1970's or maybe even never at all...*
Soviets had half the Europe under their control along with china, also US would have lost millions in trying to invade Japan and trying to hold on to it.
@@yoppindia holding onto it would be easy. Your forgetting Soviet and Chinese infastructure was destroyed in the war. China even more since they dealt with Japan and civil war. US was pretty much untouched and greatly improved their over all factories and military knowledge.
Eh, I don't know why so many Downfall scenarios feature northern Japan being invaded by the Soviets. There is this minor detail of the Soviet Pacific Fleet having almost zero power projection ability. Even taking the southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands pushed their abilities to the limit, and plans to invade Hokkado were deemed unfeasible by the Red Army. The rush to defeat Japan wasn't to stop the Soviets from taking parts of Japan, it was to stop them from taking larger chunks of China and Korea.
Keep in mind the Japanese Fleet had basically zero power projection either, obviously, a Soviet invasion would have taken time to build up any considerable amount of forces, but the possibility is still there.
PIRATE99A The Japense Islands are hell to invade. Even if they land, the Soviets would end up likely only getting Hokkaido, at best. People always put North-South Japan in these TLs because that happened si many other places.
@Metsarebuff 22 The soviet Army in 1945 was much more competent than that, you know. They weren't just swarming with higher manpower, otherwise, they would have lost to the Germans. But yeah, it probably wouldn't have worked very well for the Soviets.
At first I thought he meant Japanese army divisions in China would prepare to launch a seaborne attack on invading US forces, but later realized he misspoke and meant an entirely impossible soviet invasion.
I am pretty sure the Chinese Civil war of 1945-1949 would take a very different turn in this timeline so it would be wrong to expect a PRC-ROC faceoff between Mainland and Taiwan in this timeline.
Nukes really aren't that much deadlier than conventional weapons. A visit from Bomber Command can be just as devastating as a nuke. The advantage of nukes is twofold: 1) They're much more efficient in their destruction. The average modern nuclear warhead weighs about as much as a man, and the world's combined nuclear arsenal contains 1,000 tons of HEU and plutonium. 2) The shit-your-pants factor of radioactive fallout rendering areas uninhabitable for thousands of years (which conventional weapons, bio-weapons and gas can't do). Plenty other weapons can do the field damage nukes do, but none have the power to sterilize the whole Northern Hemisphere if deployed
@@SacredCowStockyards fallout doesn't render areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. Only a few weeks. The danger about it is that even if you survive the initial blast, the fallout will likely kill you hours later if you don't leave the affected area immediately. And while it is possible to cause similar devastation with conventional weapons, as you have said, it would require a lot more of them and be a lot more expensive to do so. Since a nuclear bomb releases about 6 million times as much energy as the best high explosives of the same weight, a single rather small missile can cause the same level of destruction you would otherwise need a thousand heavy strategic bombers for.
Eatinsomtin and like two boats. Russia wasnt exactly a naval power. Also, have you ever tried to not only move 20 million soldiers plus military equipment across Siberia, not to mention, the supply chain. You calling him an idiot is a true pot and kettle moment.
@@eatinsomtin9984 I’d love to see you try to supply the naval power required for 20 million troops, and the efficiency to beach them against an enemy like the Japanese. Good luck! 👍
9:48 I found this point very interesting. It's similar to ww2 when the Germans when East and the Ukrainians etc were at first pleased to see them as the Soviets had treated them so badly, until the Germans started killing everyone. If the Americans were moving East the whole thing probably would just fall apart.
To be fair, they might be more hesitant to trust the Americans specifically because of past experiences with the Nazis. Also ngl this comment reminded me of a quote from Hellsing abridged "We are here to save you-" "Hooray! It's the (Germanns)!" "-FROM YOURSELVES!" "Oh no, it's the (Germans)."
Tbh I don't think the Russians where just numerically superior, they had been fighting from Stalingrad to Berlin, they were well experienced and deadly
Same thoughts here... also I don't think that western public could tolerate huge loses during that conflict. When US joint war against Germany main german forces were faced against Soviet union and I think it is main reason behind successes of western allies in the war.
By that time the Americans, British, French, Canadians etc. were also experienced and deadly. The Soviet advantage would be numbers, esp. at first (long run the combination against them has more people and production but if the Soviets win first that might not matter as much. It would be a mI think its pretty clear the Soviets would have the initial advantage on the ground in Europe.atter of how much damage they can do and ground they can take before American industry and nukes can be decisive along with the major contributions from the UK and any unconquered parts of Europe. Could they push to the Atlantic or would they lose and collapse back to their borders (while still probably causing enough damage to the enemy in the process that the war might end there rather then pushing in to Soviet territory)
Russian leadership and offensive strategy was not a good as people think. The Germans especially at the end of WW2 virtually self destructed. They would be able to push far due to numbers, but Americans and British dominated the air and sea. Especially with superior industry, Russia would have to try and throw all their might right out of the gate to win and stun the west. If a war like this lasted too long America and NATO would most likely win.
Atlas Augustus still, there were other ways to take out japan with similar or slightly higher casualties, namely conventional bombing and naval blockades.
Phil Swift there isn't much debate over that as everyone would use that kind of a weapon (they didn't knew it's full potential anyway) under those circumstances, doesn't change the fact that nukes were still a bit much however.
Sarp Kaplan but during the time it would have taken, the Soviet’s would have seized more land and more people would be oppressed under communism. Plus it is less cruel imo to nuke two cities then starve the entire nation
@@TheCreator901 This also goes into debates about ethics and when is killing or massive destruction necessary for the greater good. IMO, the nukes were the most ethical choice even if they would seem truly apocalyptic. But I can also understand why others would be appalled nowadays at the choices. War is Hell, and the way there truly is laid with good intentions.
I’ve read that Stalins declaration of war on Japan was what caused it to surrender. Also if they weren’t willing to take the loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese to nukes then why would they be willing to lose millions to conventional warfare?
@@chieuleyang6768 i feel like because if you get nuked you still have your sovereignity. But if you're actually getting invaded, the enemy will rape your country to the ground
I think one critical factor going for the allies in Europe is the huge and undisputed areal supremacy. The bomber fleets could probably annihilate or severely damage Soviet formations heading to invade western germany. I also don't believe the Russians had an overwhelming numerical superiority to the Allies in Europe. By the end of 1944 and early 1945, the allies had millions of troops in france gearing up for an invasion of germany. Churchill was convinced that they had to fight the russians eventually, and so without the atomic ace card, allied armies would probably be still on alert in 1945-46 for russian movements (even more so if the tensions in Japan in this scenario did escalate).
The Red Army did start demobilization in the late war but still outnumbered westerners in Europe closer to 6:1 and the US didn’t really have a quality superiority until the 60’s which means they would probably push them out, especially if they remobilized the 26 million that they sent home in 1944. Furthermore Russian pilots were an equal match at the time just look at the Korean War volunteers from the USSR.
Also soviet troops were more experienced because because main German forces were fighting against soviet union. And I am not sure that US public could tolerate massive casualties during that conflict with soviet union. Also there is no real war plans in Soviet union against west, while west had Operation unthinkable in their thoughts about future.
Europe's relatively mild landscapes makes tranportation, city building, and farming easy meaning Europe is often quite well off in peacetime. However it also makes moving troops and finding and hitting targets easier which is probably a reason Europe has had such devastating wars.
Europe has by far the most overpowed geografy. But it was bever unified like USA wich led to horrofying wars throughout history. Imagine if USA never unified and was only seperatet states from 1776 untill now. And imagine if they also wasn't blessed with peace. Their wars combined is under 1million casualties. While europe lies on over 100 million casualties from 1776.
Just Imagine a western european country with 360 million population. Almoust blessed with complete peace from 1776. They would probobly reconqur amerika and the rest of the world before decolonisation.
This video focuses a lot on the end of WW2. I want a video about the actual present if nuclear weapons werent viable/cost too much/werent powerful enoguh to destroy the world. Would the war be a burning hell hole of wars or it wouldnt change much?
Robin van Rossum It was technically a single country it’s just that the succession was Elective meaning the title of Emperor bounced around from duchy to duchy.
@@Kunumbah1 - Not just that it was elective (at least at first) but more importantly it was very decentralized. It was barely a country. A confederation not a federation. There is a lot of truth in the old saw that the Holy Roman Empire was not Holy (it was a secular state institution even though religion had a lot more influence then) not Roman (it was mostly German) and not an empire (the last is perhaps questionable but only because empire can mean somewhat different things, certainly it wasn't a unified centralized empire)
3:56 "Meanwhile, the Japanese were planning an invasion of the northernmost Isle of Japan, Hokkaido." I think this should actually be: "Meanwhile, the Russians were planning an invasion of the northernmost Isle of Japan, Hokkaido."
@Metsarebuff 22 Hahahaha, no. If OP Unthinkable was seriously being considered, the two nukes we had would not have been used as a show of force on Japan, they would have simply been starved into submission. The two we had, and as many as we could produce week to week ramping up like all other military production would see the ussr reduced to a complete wasteland rather than just everything east of the Urals.
One thing I've always asked when people do Japan Invasion scenarios when it comes to Soviet landings is this: with what ships? The Soviet Union had no ability to make such an invasion in 1945, and by the time they had what it takes the war would be over, and those assets would be far better served securing assets in China.
This doesnt sound plausible at all. The Soviet Union was basically a dead man across the finish line at the end of WW2. They pillaged the newly conquered lands to recover and it still took them decades to even replenish their man power. Meanwhile the US was basically untouched by the war and horrified by communism. They would push their shit in and collapse communism in the USSR faster than you can say "o fuck me comrade". As far as Japan is concerned, the US could easily bomb cities or even bombard them with naval cannons considering how narrow Japan is. Considering they had no issues fire bombing Germany and dropping nukes in our timeline its doubtful they would sacrifice millions of their soldiers instead of subjecting Japan to months if not years of bombing until their government and/or population collapsed.
Given how many things the discovery of nuclear energy implied, I'd rather say that such discovery would be inevitable. But still it's incredible that the absence of a single person could have had such drastic effects.
Is too small and the native population too disconnected from everyone else without important animals such as the horse and whatnot to form such a Regional sphere as seen in Europe and Asia
There's no way in hell the U.S. would ever allow the Soviets into Japan. Without massive logistical & naval support from the U.S. a Russian invasion of Japan is all but impossible.
@@thesherlockhound Thete wasnt really a reason to they couldve easily been starved out. Hell even after surrender the Japanese started to starve. Because the US couldnt being in food fast enough. Japan was in that bad of shape at the end of the war.
@@FrostbitexP if there is a room full of 40 cats, and 20 pairs of them are fighting savage duels, is that significantly more peaceful than if there are 2 alliances of 20 cats fighting a battle? Suez, korea, vietnam, ethiopia, rwanda, the arab spring, isreal/palestine, india/pakistan, taliban in afghanistan, ussr in afghanistan, usa in afghanistan, iraq, iran/iraq, the cuban revolution, multiple central and south american revolutions, yugoslavia, the troubles in northern ireland, the chinese annexation of tibet, russia/ukraine, russia/georgia, the falklands, south georgia, bougainville, sri lanka... etc etc etc. Nukes have not made world peace a reality.
Nice one dude! Let me just point out a few things about the middle east If Israel didnt develop nuclear weapons, it'll most likely mean that Egypt wouldve declared war with Jordan and Syria in 63-64 instead of 1967 when Israel already attacked first. Thisll also cause the 1973 war to happen earlier in the late 60's, but if Egypt will sign a peace treaty before 71 when the Baath party took Syria, Syria will follow Egypt's path and partition the Golan with Israel for peace. Couple with the Jordan peace in 1994, and a peace treaty with Lebanon that was signed in 1982 which only got broken when the Syrians put a puppet ragime in Lebanon to get the Israelis out, which wouldnt happen in this timeline. Couple with Iran not supporting Hamas and them both not having nukes, its very likely that a peace with Palestine will be signed in the 2000's
There would be more wars, larger wars, more death and destruction between the world powers. Its interesting how something so cruel and destructive can result in relative “peace” (for what its worth) in our world. For now.
I think increasing starvation, continued conventional bombing, and the threat of a much worse Soviet Invasion would lead the Japanese to surrender without the need for an actual Invasion. That is especially true if America would have been willing to accept a conditional surrender which the fear of the soviets gaining control of Japan would push them to do.
@@timwf11b nothing compared to the deaths and sufferings caused by japan, they already invaded China in 1931 and colonized Korea at the start of the century
@@trollmcclure2659 - Sure they killed millions and caused many millions more to suffer greatly. Still when your getting to the point of ending the war if you could do so with less civilian deaths I'd take that over causing a lot more deaths of Japanese civilians. But you have to get the war over. And a good argument can be made that dropping the two nukes was the way to make that happen, and that doing so caused less civilian deaths in Japan then either a prolonged campaign of non-nuclear bombing and cutting off their shipping, or an invasion would have.
Two things. One: WW3 in the 50s is too early. There is no time for the new generation of fighters to grow into manhood. Mid 60s is more realistic. Unless of course the majorit of fighters came from the bottomless well of china. Two: The war you present is too limited. For one China would join and there would be A LOT of fighting there. Also India, Central Asia. The Middle East for oil. There would be war EVERYWHERE. Plus if the war turned against the soviets I doubt the West would stop with weakening them. I think they would take this all the way. Conquer and divide the Communist countries. End the problem once and for all.
Chris Cardona china was under mongol rule, if osmanlı and memluks didn't exist timur would get all of north africa, moscow and north of it, and india (along with what he already had)
Along with Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning,Turtledove would really make another good duo or trio of books about a theoretical invasion,hell,there's already a few not by Harry on this topic.
5:28 “I’m surprised it isn’t a Harry Turtledove book”. Actually, it is in a Harry Turtledove book. He covers the joint invasion and partition of Japan in his book “Joe Steele”.
This is an interesting topic, one I've been fascinated about. But I'd like to bring up another point of view onto it. So, basically, the actual chances of Operation Downfall actually happening are pretty slim. Keep in mind, neither side wanted to go through with the invasion. Japan KNEW they couldn't win. The whole idea of Ketsugō was not to actually win the war, but to scare the allies so they'd declare an armistice. So if the allies were still willing to go through, Japan may have just surrendered right then and there. Also, when it came to Japan's surrender, it was much more than just the atom bombs. There was also the Soviet Union invading Manchuria, which was actually what got Japan's military to meet up for surrender in the first place. Which even Douglas MacArthur said was true. And let's say all this failed, and Japan was ready for an invasion, no matter what. The chances of the Soviet Union getting involved are also fairly slim. It's *possible* but I feel like it wouldn't be very successful. When it comes to Europe and tensions, I don't really know if there'd be a nuke less cold war or not. I'd say, maybe Churchill and Patton decide to go through with Operation Unthinkable, perhaps it succeeds, but perhaps it also fails, and a WWIII type thing happens. London is back on lockdown. Europeans have to brace for yet another war, but this time with their former ally. It'd be like WWII but with more modern equipment, say, it's the 1950's or 60's so we have jet air raids now. Vietnam is far more devastating, with more deaths on both sides. Instead of the Cuban missile crisis it's a fear of regular air raids or something. There'd probably be little way of telling how much the Korean war would be same or different, but it's fun to theorize.
0:47 someone else would’ve continued her work due to her working with a lot of scientists so the Manhattan project being a failure is probably the only way to stop existence of nuclear weapons.
Why does every one say that Japan would not surrendered. There are more than a few history books out there with good sources that say that the Japanese were already planning on surrendering. The bombs just made them surrender about a month early
As much as I know they had always one big condition. The emperor was not to be touched but the americans refused this condition every time. so No if the USA would still say no to that then the japanese would fight to the bitter end I would guesse
The atomic bombs did not influence japans surrender. Japan’s wartime prime minister Kantaro Suzuki: "If we miss the chance today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."
@@ystudbeast3 most Germans knew what the Germans had done and where disgusted. Like 99.99% of German troops where Nazis just Germans Fighting for there nations.
The Japanese were indeed ready to surrender, especially to America and the Allies, rather than the Soviet Union, because they abhorred communism that much. They sent constant offers of surrender to the American government, but Truman kept finding excuses (mainly the fact the Japanese wanted to keep their emperor, they were even willing to relegate him to a mere figurehead) to deny them. In truth, Truman desperately wanted to use the atomic bomb, because he also was scared of the Soviet Union, and he wanted to intimidate Stalin with the power of the bomb. Therefore, he bombed Japan twice, which definitely caused the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. It may also be noted that firebombing raids had already caused many more casualties than the two bombs did. After the surrender, Truman revealed to Stalin that they were the ones who had manufactured the bomb. This reportedly didn't impress Stalin, because his spies had already kept him updated on the progress of the Manhattan Project. In the end, the Americans didn't even have any problem with allowing the Japanese to surrender or keep their emperor, they just wanted to impress the Soviets, which didn't really work.
They could have used the nuclear bomb as a demonstration first. Can it not be said that a detonation over Tokyo Bay would sufficiently test the destructive potential of the Little Boy bomb while demonstrating unequivocally to fascist Japan that, despite at most a few hundred to a few thousand casualties? If not, there was always Fat Man to drop if they still wouldn't surrender.
How about just blockading Japan and keep firebombing it? More people died in Tokyo Firebombings than died in the Nuclear bombs... Also Russia would invade Norway 100% at the end of WW2 Russia had liberated almost half of the country from Nazi regime but then they pulled out. If the war had continued then they're need the coastline of Norway to deploy ships, just as the Germans wanted it for.
what if USA joined central powers would lead into this, because it would have been an all out invasion not just a small clash like what happened in the war of 1812
You mean conquered not colonized right? Canada is so big in area that its hard to control, but the mismatch in military power has typically been real huge. If huge numbers of Canadians wanted to wage a guerilla war across the country they could bleed the Americans for years maybe decades but they could never directly defeat the Americans in large scale operations, unless the Americans made a blunder and even then the next wave of US forces would clear up the winners of the last battle. A determined enough guerilla campaign might cause a US loss the way Vietnam was a loss (loss of will, and just say hell with it and go home), or it might be bloody crushed (assuming an nasty enough America to invade Canada in the fist place) Either way a lot of death and destruction for not much benefit to anyone. Better to just trade with Canada.
The USSR had no navel assets in the Far East, the red army had no experience in amphibious operations, and no landing craft to facilitate them. The Soviets would have no envolvment in the invasion and occupation of Japan therefore no communist Japan.
Drex No, he was right. Okinawa is about 466 square miles, while Rhode Island is about 1,212 square miles. Thus Okinawa is roughly 38.4488% the size of Rhode Island
11:00 Actually o believe the reason why Germany has been forgiven for WW2 but not Japan is cultural Western culture is very pro-forgiveness while this is a foreign concept to Asian culture which is very shame-based Therefore Japan can never be forgiven unless it stops existing ... this is why S. Korea , which geopolitically is in it's best interest to reconcile with Japan , refuses to do so
I think there is another factor too. For example the nazis and Imperial Japan were very cruel in their invasions to the civilians but it was a bit different with Germany. Germany saw the Jews and Slavs as sub humans and treated the civilians and soldiers from the eastern front like shit. The eastern front was a nightmare of war crimes compared to the western front. Therefore the lesser degree of war crimes might have influenced why Western Europe is more forgiving of Germany since they didn’t see the same degree of war crimes as on the East front or the Japanese invasions
-"Practically" only usage of nuclear weapons was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are there others we don't know about? -Your assumption that Japan wouldn't surrender and Operation Downfall would have to happen without nukes is traditionalist thinking. I don't know of the military "almost imprisoning" the Emperor for considering surrender, especially since him wanting to surrender was why they did! Contrary to popular belief, atomic weapons were not so shocking that the Japanese finally gave up. The months of fire bombings started to turn their attitudes, then the Soviet invasion of Manchuria destroyed their hope of negotiating better terms, then the military finally asked the Emperor what he thought, and he said surrender. It's possible that invasion would still have happened, but not assured and other factors besides the bombs influenced it. -The Soviets were not "planning" an invasion of Hokkaido. Stalin said he wanted to do it, but there was little "planning" beyond that. Even if they went through with it (and that's a big 'if' ua-cam.com/video/RwBh4p08tRs/v-deo.html) it definitely would not have happened "alongside" the American invasion. The first part of Downfall was planned for late 1945 and everyone knew the Soviets were woefully unprepared to carry out a massive amphibious assault that soon. And no, you can't just say "Stalin was so nuts he would have ordered it then regardless of reason." -"Many" historians do not seriously believe Beria poisoned Stalin. That's a rumor and basically gossip. -Stalin may have believed war was inevitable with the West, but he was not eager to start another confrontation, especially so soon after the WWII and even without nuclear weapons. The 50s would not have been "the perfect time" for another total war, as the Soviets had just lost nearly a fifth of their population and even with a large army would not have been assured of victory. Traditional balance of power dynamics could definitely have kept the peace until after Stalin's death, and simply saying "Stalin would have invaded" seems like just something to make the scenario more interesting. -Climate change may not be that much worse. The major boom in nuclear power plants happened during and after the 70s oil crises, so even without a consensus on global warming there would still have been a demand for energy not relied upon from the Middle East. Maybe wind and solar power development would have started sooner to fill the void simply as an oil alternative without nuclear power to take the place.
@@aliemreazgn3634 I think that was more about political cover. Who could blame him for surrendering in the face of some new superweapon? He called them "most cruel bombs" but unless you want to argue that without that maybe the mutiny against him would have been successful, I think he still would have gotten everyone to follow his command to stop fighting.
@@creatoruser736 When the cities were nuked and everything in it was destroyed in second by a single bomb. Hirohito saw that Ketsu-Go had no change while enemy can destroy cities with one single bomb. Japanese army and people would continue to preparations for a mainland defence even if Japan didnt surrender but Hirohito saw that with atomic bombs, Japanese nation could be removed from earth. It wasnt easy to produce A-bombs yes but during that time no Japanese could know it, maybe Hirohito thought that Americans can change their normal bombs with atomic bombs and destroy all the cities that Japan had.
@@aliemreazgn3634 How many bombs it took to level a city was irrelevant at that point. Fire bombings had destroyed entire cities for months, with the raid on Tokyo killing more people than either of the A-bombings. The Americans had air superiority so how many planes and bombs it took wasn't an issue. Still, it was after the Soviet intervention that it was realized all hope was lost, and still the surrender decision was made nearly a week after those events, so he didn't come to the decision abruptly. It's entirely plausible that having the cities fire bombed and the Soviets still attacking Manchuria would get the Emperor to accept US demands without the "shock" of the atomic bombs. They weren't even considered that shocking since the Japanese were accustomed to having cities destroyed, and the method didn't change much for them.
@@creatoruser736 Youre all wrong, you forget the fact that Fire bombings lasted for months while destroying a city took second with atomic bombs. Japan knew that Soviets could not invade mainland but they knew the biggest threat: atomic bombs. When you lose 1 city by only 1 bomber and 1 bomb then you realize youre doomed. As Hirohito states in his speech "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." he definiteliy states that there is no point to continue to fight while enemy can destroy cities by only 1 bomb. Soviet invasion of manchuria wasnt something big, it was already expected by Japanese they were preparing for mainland defence not manchuria or China, their last effort to destroy China was Ichi-Go and it failed when China didnt surrender. After Iwo Jima Japan started to transport all their qualified equipments to mainland for mainland defence against US but they realised that defence had no point when enemy had atomic bombs that can remove thousands of people in one second. "fire bombings caused more damage than atomic bombs" is just dogma and simple logic but when you research a little deeper you will learn. After first atomic bomb Japanese military government and Hirohito thought it was one time thing but after second bomb Hirohito realised there was no point to continue to fight.
I have no objection to the content of this video but the audio is unreasonably quiet. Even at maximum volume I am struggling to hear this over ambient noise.
You ignore one major point that invalidates your entire analysis: people in Italy, France and Greece were ready for a communist revolution The loyalty of the allies wouldn't be a problem for the soviets but for the NATO which would probably have to face a harsh guerrilla against former ww2 communist partisans
The were small populations of Communists in those countries, but the West wasn't trying to conquer Italy, France, and Greece, so the people were less worried about having US troops in the country. The Soviets, on the other hand, were clearly trying to control Eastern Europe. Look at our time line. There were rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but there were no similar sized rebellions in Western Europe.
Poor calculation. By the end of the WW2 USSR have had more tanks, plains and seasoned manpower then the whole Western Europe combined because it went full War-Economy. If not for the nukes, USSR would've conquered the entire Europe in no time. The main goal for the US to nuke Japan was to show Stalin what's gonna happen to Moscow should he decide to pass Alba. *I'm not a USSR admirer, quite opposite in fact. Just looking at this possibility realistically.
The world would be a lot more tense and more aggressive Japan would be divided and Europe would be a battlefield . The Cold War wouldn’t be a Cold War but a hot war : world war 3.
You had me, right up until you suggested the soviets were at all capable of launching a successful invasion of the home islands. The US would not provide them one ship to occupy any part of mainland Japan and they couldn't manufacture the ships fast enough and get the experience needed to not instantly fail.
If nukes never existed: WW3 and WW4 have been fought and done, We are now gearing up for WW5
The idea is that nukes never existed so they wouldn’t be discovered that’s the entire point of the video
I'm form thailand and if nuke never exit i might speak japanese
@@klampassn9987 plus you would be a slave living horrible life
@@klampassn9987 the United States would just have invaded Japan and Thailand was a Japanese ally.
@@Juan-qu4oj eh thailand was left alone, the US didn't really care about it, but yeah thailand still wouldn't speak japanese
"Mean while the Japenese were planning an invasion of the northern most Japenese island of"
Heh. I assume it was the Russians planning the invasion…
How are you the only one to point that out?😂 I was going to but saw this. It’s not a big deal by any means but it is rather hilarious. And only 13 likes? Fuck these people.
Did he have a stroke when he said that?
@@cyanicspectreskittleinc.9549 .............Really?
@@concept5631 I assume not, his mind was just on the Japanese and so he accidentally said Japanese. It happens to the best of us
I Actually believe that this time line might increase the post war sympathy towards the Nazi government in germany significantly. All the german Generals and Nazi officials who survived the war would spin the entire 2nd world war onto a campaign that mainly focused on protecting europe from the communists, and would excuse their numerous Invasions of other countries as necessary to secret ressources and to unite europe to fight the true enemy.
They already tried to spin the narrative into this direction in reality, but with the soviets actually attacking the allies so soon after the defeat of the axis powers, the allies might actually truly start to believe that they fought the wrong guys.
This sounds very similar to a “What if Trotsky led the USSR” theory where Russia invades Western Europe in order to spread the world commune and stop fascism. In this timeline, Nazism actually endures as an ideology, since Germany is actually invaded by the “Communist Jews” they were so scared of.
It wouldn't be that much of a "spin" since that was also the reality. I can't look it up right now so forgive me if I'm mis-remembering, but wasn't the Communist Party the second largest in Germany in the late 1920's? I'm pretty sure I'm not mistaken when I say the Soviets did attack the Allies -- in 1939 with the invasion of Poland, something everyone was supposed to forget. I can't help but think their treatment of the Warsaw Pact countries after the war might also make the "protecting Europe from the communists" spin a little more believable.
kind of like the lost cause mentality with the civil war
I mean, even then it’s kind of hard to ignore all the genocide they did along the way. And I’m not sure France and Poland would be so understanding.
@@dantecaputo2629 well, nobody really had an issue with ihnoring the armenian genocide or the genocides (plural) vommitted by the japanese after the war. I find it hard to believe that anyone would care about the nazi genocide if there was a bigger issue.
The Cold War in a nutshell:
“I can end your nation in minutes”
“ I can too”
“ Ight then I won’t shoot if you don’t”
“Ok”
Rinse and repeat for half a decade
An American and a Russian sitting in a room having the highest stakes staring contest of all time as their fingers hover above big red buttons.
U mean century
A bit more than a half a decade.
Yeah we know
America has more of its citizens in jails/prisons than Stalin ever did in his gulag system. Potato Patato.
Short answer: there would be more wars
Why? Because you have no fear of total destruction
because we didnt have the capability to make ourselves extinct until nuclear weapons
Yes, USSR vs USA will probably occur.
@@notlogical4016 true but whats the point? Nobody wins in a nuclear war. Unless you like being locked up in a bunker for the rest of your life sure i guess
@@emelgiefro mistake and errors could happen, let not forget that. Personally I rather have a world with more war but no nuclear weapon so at least the world doesn't end.
@@htoodoh5770 i agree
The Soviet Union would not have the industrial and military capabilities to start a New World War in the 1950's, as they would not have enough manpower to create sufficient reserves and replace casualties. During the Second World War the Soviet Union contrary to the popular myth of "infinite Soviet manpower", experienced manpower shortages as early as 1943. Statistics published by Russian author Sergei Nikolaevich Mikhalev on reservist numbers show us that from 1941 to 1943, the number of available reservists and combat-fit men decreased from 31,500,000 men (1941) to *6,670,000 men* ( September 1st, 1942 ). This tells us that *the USSR "lost" 18,069,000 men ( 75% percent of its available manpower ) from 1941 to late 1942* mostly due to loss of territory but also overall combat casualties. From late 1942 onwards they emptied the prisons, stripped the Navy of personnel, and conscripted 17 year olds to fill army ranks.
*Considering that in this timeline the Soviets would undertake what would probably be an extremely bloody invasion of Northern Japan, Soviet losses would be even more devastating than in our timeline, the USSR would only have the capability to fight another World War at least in the early 1970's or maybe even never at all...*
Such a true comment will never be considered by keyboard-communists.
Edit: I was wrong!
Soviets had half the Europe under their control along with china, also US would have lost millions in trying to invade Japan and trying to hold on to it.
@@yoppindia holding onto it would be easy. Your forgetting Soviet and Chinese infastructure was destroyed in the war. China even more since they dealt with Japan and civil war. US was pretty much untouched and greatly improved their over all factories and military knowledge.
the Soviet Army tactics make your statements quite true they were burning men faster than they could get them.
@@JaKingScomez you right bro but man power required all countries those time .They try to need help from most populated country like Asia and Africa.
Eh, I don't know why so many Downfall scenarios feature northern Japan being invaded by the Soviets. There is this minor detail of the Soviet Pacific Fleet having almost zero power projection ability. Even taking the southern half of Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands pushed their abilities to the limit, and plans to invade Hokkado were deemed unfeasible by the Red Army. The rush to defeat Japan wasn't to stop the Soviets from taking parts of Japan, it was to stop them from taking larger chunks of China and Korea.
Keep in mind the Japanese Fleet had basically zero power projection either, obviously, a Soviet invasion would have taken time to build up any considerable amount of forces, but the possibility is still there.
PIRATE99A The Japense Islands are hell to invade. Even if they land, the Soviets would end up likely only getting Hokkaido, at best.
People always put North-South Japan in these TLs because that happened si many other places.
@@innosam123 Yeah that's true
@Metsarebuff 22 The soviet Army in 1945 was much more competent than that, you know. They weren't just swarming with higher manpower, otherwise, they would have lost to the Germans.
But yeah, it probably wouldn't have worked very well for the Soviets.
@@innosam123 Read the books of the red plague.
"The Japanese are planning an invasion of the northern most island of the Japanese archipelago."
-Whatifalthist, 2018
Just like the American doctrine, If we don't know what we are doing, then the enemy certainly wan't know what we are doing.
At first I thought he meant Japanese army divisions in China would prepare to launch a seaborne attack on invading US forces, but later realized he misspoke and meant an entirely impossible soviet invasion.
@@completelywack Lmao.
I am pretty sure the Chinese Civil war of 1945-1949 would take a very different turn in this timeline so it would be wrong to expect a PRC-ROC faceoff between Mainland and Taiwan in this timeline.
The combatants would have developed more chemical weapons or even biological weapons. Those weapons could be as lethal as nuclear weapons.
allthough without the splitting of the atom and the discovery of how radiation works on DNA development of deadly bio weapons would be more difficult
dragosstanciu, exactly what i thinking, less nukes more mustard.
Nukes really aren't that much deadlier than conventional weapons. A visit from Bomber Command can be just as devastating as a nuke.
The advantage of nukes is twofold:
1) They're much more efficient in their destruction. The average modern nuclear warhead weighs about as much as a man, and the world's combined nuclear arsenal contains 1,000 tons of HEU and plutonium.
2) The shit-your-pants factor of radioactive fallout rendering areas uninhabitable for thousands of years (which conventional weapons, bio-weapons and gas can't do).
Plenty other weapons can do the field damage nukes do, but none have the power to sterilize the whole Northern Hemisphere if deployed
@@SacredCowStockyards fallout doesn't render areas uninhabitable for thousands of years. Only a few weeks. The danger about it is that even if you survive the initial blast, the fallout will likely kill you hours later if you don't leave the affected area immediately. And while it is possible to cause similar devastation with conventional weapons, as you have said, it would require a lot more of them and be a lot more expensive to do so. Since a nuclear bomb releases about 6 million times as much energy as the best high explosives of the same weight, a single rather small missile can cause the same level of destruction you would otherwise need a thousand heavy strategic bombers for.
This guy is the only channel which covers alternative history that's not overtly condescending.
3:56 Ah yes, only the japanese could ever successfully conquer Japan.
I think he was referring to the USSR. They probably wouldn't be able to do it.
@@nevergivingup3434 pretty sure they would have as they had 20 milion men in the army at that time u idiot
Eatinsomtin and like two boats. Russia wasnt exactly a naval power. Also, have you ever tried to not only move 20 million soldiers plus military equipment across Siberia, not to mention, the supply chain. You calling him an idiot is a true pot and kettle moment.
Not to mention, Japan is extremely mountainous. So having 20 million people may be more of a detriment than a help. Again, pot and kettle.
@@eatinsomtin9984
I’d love to see you try to supply the naval power required for 20 million troops, and the efficiency to beach them against an enemy like the Japanese.
Good luck! 👍
9:48 I found this point very interesting.
It's similar to ww2 when the Germans when East and the Ukrainians etc were at first pleased to see them as the Soviets had treated them so badly, until the Germans started killing everyone.
If the Americans were moving East the whole thing probably would just fall apart.
To be fair, they might be more hesitant to trust the Americans specifically because of past experiences with the Nazis.
Also ngl this comment reminded me of a quote from Hellsing abridged
"We are here to save you-"
"Hooray! It's the (Germanns)!"
"-FROM YOURSELVES!"
"Oh no, it's the (Germans)."
Tbh I don't think the Russians where just numerically superior, they had been fighting from Stalingrad to Berlin, they were well experienced and deadly
Same thoughts here... also I don't think that western public could tolerate huge loses during that conflict. When US joint war against Germany main german forces were faced against Soviet union and I think it is main reason behind successes of western allies in the war.
By that time the Americans, British, French, Canadians etc. were also experienced and deadly. The Soviet advantage would be numbers, esp. at first (long run the combination against them has more people and production but if the Soviets win first that might not matter as much. It would be a mI think its pretty clear the Soviets would have the initial advantage on the ground in Europe.atter of how much damage they can do and ground they can take before American industry and nukes can be decisive along with the major contributions from the UK and any unconquered parts of Europe. Could they push to the Atlantic or would they lose and collapse back to their borders (while still probably causing enough damage to the enemy in the process that the war might end there rather then pushing in to Soviet territory)
@Viper help from western allies played some role only in first years while Soviets moved their industry, after that it played less role.
Russian leadership and offensive strategy was not a good as people think. The Germans especially at the end of WW2 virtually self destructed. They would be able to push far due to numbers, but Americans and British dominated the air and sea. Especially with superior industry, Russia would have to try and throw all their might right out of the gate to win and stun the west. If a war like this lasted too long America and NATO would most likely win.
And, they could have ordered their infantry to swim from Sakhalin to Hokkaido, since they had no ships to carry them.
What if America moved its capital to Kansas.
THE GRUMPY DRAGON then Berney sanders would be king
Abdulla Zainalabedin am confused 🤷♀️ by your comment
@@thegrumpydragon7601 Me too but Bernie would be a good leader and that's the only part I understood so im gonna like It ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
?
No move it to missouri.
That buzzing made think my headphones had broke.
It is for this reason I get annoyed when nuclear bombs are called evil.
Atlas Augustus still, there were other ways to take out japan with similar or slightly higher casualties, namely conventional bombing and naval blockades.
Sarp Kaplan The thing was that people feared that the blockade itself would take very long and extend the war which the allies wanted to end quickly.
Phil Swift there isn't much debate over that as everyone would use that kind of a weapon (they didn't knew it's full potential anyway) under those circumstances, doesn't change the fact that nukes were still a bit much however.
Sarp Kaplan but during the time it would have taken, the Soviet’s would have seized more land and more people would be oppressed under communism.
Plus it is less cruel imo to nuke two cities then starve the entire nation
@@TheCreator901 This also goes into debates about ethics and when is killing or massive destruction necessary for the greater good. IMO, the nukes were the most ethical choice even if they would seem truly apocalyptic. But I can also understand why others would be appalled nowadays at the choices. War is Hell, and the way there truly is laid with good intentions.
The quality gap between this and your current stuff is nuts, really shows how much you’ve grown as a creator
I’ve read that Stalins declaration of war on Japan was what caused it to surrender. Also if they weren’t willing to take the loss of hundreds of thousands of Japanese to nukes then why would they be willing to lose millions to conventional warfare?
@@chieuleyang6768 i feel like because if you get nuked you still have your sovereignity. But if you're actually getting invaded, the enemy will rape your country to the ground
I think one critical factor going for the allies in Europe is the huge and undisputed areal supremacy. The bomber fleets could probably annihilate or severely damage Soviet formations heading to invade western germany.
I also don't believe the Russians had an overwhelming numerical superiority to the Allies in Europe. By the end of 1944 and early 1945, the allies had millions of troops in france gearing up for an invasion of germany. Churchill was convinced that they had to fight the russians eventually, and so without the atomic ace card, allied armies would probably be still on alert in 1945-46 for russian movements (even more so if the tensions in Japan in this scenario did escalate).
Darth Calanil are you kidding?
The numerical superiority was still there
Also, the Allies wouldn't necceraily have arial superiority, simply because the Soviets army was so giant, so the air force had to be as well.
The Red Army did start demobilization in the late war but still outnumbered westerners in Europe closer to 6:1 and the US didn’t really have a quality superiority until the 60’s which means they would probably push them out, especially if they remobilized the 26 million that they sent home in 1944. Furthermore Russian pilots were an equal match at the time just look at the Korean War volunteers from the USSR.
Also soviet troops were more experienced because because main German forces were fighting against soviet union. And I am not sure that US public could tolerate massive casualties during that conflict with soviet union. Also there is no real war plans in Soviet union against west, while west had Operation unthinkable in their thoughts about future.
Europe's relatively mild landscapes makes tranportation, city building, and farming easy meaning Europe is often quite well off in peacetime. However it also makes moving troops and finding and hitting targets easier which is probably a reason Europe has had such devastating wars.
Europe has by far the most overpowed geografy. But it was bever unified like USA wich led to horrofying wars throughout history. Imagine if USA never unified and was only seperatet states from 1776 untill now. And imagine if they also wasn't blessed with peace. Their wars combined is under 1million casualties. While europe lies on over 100 million casualties from 1776.
Just Imagine a western european country with 360 million population. Almoust blessed with complete peace from 1776. They would probobly reconqur amerika and the rest of the world before decolonisation.
I've got a question that would change the entire history of warfare:
What if the ancient Greeks discovered and were able to use radio waves?
😳
I don’t know why we haven’t read more military contrahistorical fiction on this scenario. It’s fascinating.
I could hear hell march in the distance
This video focuses a lot on the end of WW2. I want a video about the actual present if nuclear weapons werent viable/cost too much/werent powerful enoguh to destroy the world. Would the war be a burning hell hole of wars or it wouldnt change much?
In Germany you invade the Soviet Union
In America the NSA invades your privacy
Das einzige was hier noch erobert wird sind Kommentarsektionen und Mallorca
The only things that still get invaded by us are commentaries and Mallorca
6:39 stalin introduced this guy to roosevelt as "Our Himmler"
what if the HRE united 1 one country somewhere between 1155-1268 and how could it united? (maybe a threat from France?)
Robin van Rossum It was technically a single country it’s just that the succession was Elective meaning the title of Emperor bounced around from duchy to duchy.
@@Kunumbah1 - Not just that it was elective (at least at first) but more importantly it was very decentralized. It was barely a country. A confederation not a federation. There is a lot of truth in the old saw that the Holy Roman Empire was not Holy (it was a secular state institution even though religion had a lot more influence then) not Roman (it was mostly German) and not an empire (the last is perhaps questionable but only because empire can mean somewhat different things, certainly it wasn't a unified centralized empire)
3:56 "Meanwhile, the Japanese were planning an invasion of the northernmost Isle of Japan, Hokkaido."
I think this should actually be:
"Meanwhile, the Russians were planning an invasion of the northernmost Isle of Japan, Hokkaido."
I don't think I've ever heard someone say "retarded" in that way
The correct way
No it’s correct
I know it's correct it's just weird
@@weloc yeah true this guy is wired in general so it makes sense he'd use it lol, but he does make good videos.
I just dont like the way he ends every sentence
Less stakes=more destruction
What if Operation Unthinkable happened
Люаза Салпагарова Impossible
@Metsarebuff 22 The US had nukes at this point and the Soviets did not, the Soviets lost more men than men than any other country during world war two
@ How high can B29 fly again ?
Люаза Салпагарова, not familiar, could you elaborate?
@Metsarebuff 22 Hahahaha, no. If OP Unthinkable was seriously being considered, the two nukes we had would not have been used as a show of force on Japan, they would have simply been starved into submission. The two we had, and as many as we could produce week to week ramping up like all other military production would see the ussr reduced to a complete wasteland rather than just everything east of the Urals.
One thing I've always asked when people do Japan Invasion scenarios when it comes to Soviet landings is this: with what ships? The Soviet Union had no ability to make such an invasion in 1945, and by the time they had what it takes the war would be over, and those assets would be far better served securing assets in China.
What if alaska and north east asia was still connected
Nothing
@@pingmann
Incan cavalry
This is the best timeline.
This doesnt sound plausible at all. The Soviet Union was basically a dead man across the finish line at the end of WW2. They pillaged the newly conquered lands to recover and it still took them decades to even replenish their man power. Meanwhile the US was basically untouched by the war and horrified by communism. They would push their shit in and collapse communism in the USSR faster than you can say "o fuck me comrade". As far as Japan is concerned, the US could easily bomb cities or even bombard them with naval cannons considering how narrow Japan is. Considering they had no issues fire bombing Germany and dropping nukes in our timeline its doubtful they would sacrifice millions of their soldiers instead of subjecting Japan to months if not years of bombing until their government and/or population collapsed.
Given how many things the discovery of nuclear energy implied, I'd rather say that such discovery would be inevitable.
But still it's incredible that the absence of a single person could have had such drastic effects.
3:57 He meant "the Soviets" not "the Japanese"
No, he clearly implied the Japanese
@@nichl474 mmm, yes. Japan vs Japan fighting for Japan to dominate the Japanese mainland to conquer all of Japan.
@@SDM_Arcugos that's a win for me
Possibly no space program because there wouldn't have been ICBMs to use for early rockets.
What if Australia was a major world civilization like Europe, the Middle East, India, and East Asia?
Is too small and the native population too disconnected from everyone else without important animals such as the horse and whatnot to form such a Regional sphere as seen in Europe and Asia
We need to have more rivers and lakes
its extremely hard for water to get past the great diving range and farms rely to heavily on rain
The great range would need to not exist so Australia could have forests.
Koala kingdom
@@davilimalol4612 Indeed they did have forests for alot of history
There's no way in hell the U.S. would ever allow the Soviets into Japan. Without massive logistical & naval support from the U.S. a Russian invasion of Japan is all but impossible.
There's probably little way Operation Downfall would even happen. Neither side wanted to go through with it.
@@thesherlockhound Thete wasnt really a reason to they couldve easily been starved out. Hell even after surrender the Japanese started to starve. Because the US couldnt being in food fast enough. Japan was in that bad of shape at the end of the war.
Of all the ones you’ve done, this one scares me the most. Nukes literally made world peace a reality (at least on a macro scale).
This is just objectively untrue
@@stevenhale2935 When was the last major war between large powers/alliances?
@@FrostbitexP if there is a room full of 40 cats, and 20 pairs of them are fighting savage duels, is that significantly more peaceful than if there are 2 alliances of 20 cats fighting a battle?
Suez, korea, vietnam, ethiopia, rwanda, the arab spring, isreal/palestine, india/pakistan, taliban in afghanistan, ussr in afghanistan, usa in afghanistan, iraq, iran/iraq, the cuban revolution, multiple central and south american revolutions, yugoslavia, the troubles in northern ireland, the chinese annexation of tibet, russia/ukraine, russia/georgia, the falklands, south georgia, bougainville, sri lanka... etc etc etc. Nukes have not made world peace a reality.
With this video you made me apprecciate our current world.
"Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, etc...."
All you had to do, was mention Bulgaria. Really nobody knows who we are. Sad.
Dont worry soon he will just have have to say Russia
@@rory6984 Wrong.
Believe me I know your pain but at least try and spell out Czechoslovakia correctly
@Brayden Pudvah They were no Nazi allies. They were occupied by them.
@@Master_Arthius poland and chechoslovakia also werent nazi allies
Nice one dude!
Let me just point out a few things about the middle east
If Israel didnt develop nuclear weapons, it'll most likely mean that Egypt wouldve declared war with Jordan and Syria in 63-64 instead of 1967 when Israel already attacked first. Thisll also cause the 1973 war to happen earlier in the late 60's, but if Egypt will sign a peace treaty before 71 when the Baath party took Syria, Syria will follow Egypt's path and partition the Golan with Israel for peace. Couple with the Jordan peace in 1994, and a peace treaty with Lebanon that was signed in 1982 which only got broken when the Syrians put a puppet ragime in Lebanon to get the Israelis out, which wouldnt happen in this timeline. Couple with Iran not supporting Hamas and them both not having nukes, its very likely that a peace with Palestine will be signed in the 2000's
There would be more wars, larger wars, more death and destruction between the world powers.
Its interesting how something so cruel and destructive can result in relative “peace” (for what its worth) in our world.
For now.
Next video, make "What if gunpowder never existed"
"The Japanese were preparing an invasion of the northernmost isle of the Japanese archipelago"
good to know lmao.
I think increasing starvation, continued conventional bombing, and the threat of a much worse Soviet Invasion would lead the Japanese to surrender without the need for an actual Invasion. That is especially true if America would have been willing to accept a conditional surrender which the fear of the soviets gaining control of Japan would push them to do.
But the continued bombing and starvation might have caused more Japanese deaths then the 2 atomic bombs.
@@timwf11b nothing compared to the deaths and sufferings caused by japan, they already invaded China in 1931 and colonized Korea at the start of the century
@@trollmcclure2659 - Sure they killed millions and caused many millions more to suffer greatly. Still when your getting to the point of ending the war if you could do so with less civilian deaths I'd take that over causing a lot more deaths of Japanese civilians. But you have to get the war over. And a good argument can be made that dropping the two nukes was the way to make that happen, and that doing so caused less civilian deaths in Japan then either a prolonged campaign of non-nuclear bombing and cutting off their shipping, or an invasion would have.
Two things. One: WW3 in the 50s is too early. There is no time for the new generation of fighters to grow into manhood. Mid 60s is more realistic. Unless of course the majorit of fighters came from the bottomless well of china. Two: The war you present is too limited. For one China would join and there would be A LOT of fighting there. Also India, Central Asia. The Middle East for oil. There would be war EVERYWHERE. Plus if the war turned against the soviets I doubt the West would stop with weakening them. I think they would take this all the way. Conquer and divide the Communist countries. End the problem once and for all.
6:35 you tryna tell us something whatifalthist?
What if Osman never existed
Timur would have conquered all of Anatolia and China.
Erdem Türk And China?
Chris Cardona china was under mongol rule, if osmanlı and memluks didn't exist timur would get all of north africa, moscow and north of it, and india (along with what he already had)
Likely independent Hungary with great effect on the Balkán as regional power
This is what would have had to happen to gain peace if the bombs werent used but people still say that the bombs were unjust and an atrocity
3:56 the japanese was going to invade themselfs?
A "What if the Bomb was invented 3 months earlier" or "What if the Bomb wasn't stolen by the Soviets" (or both) would be interesting.
“40 Million more people would die from World War 2 and World War 3”
Me: **Calm**
“Global Warming would happen a lot faster”
Me: **WOKE!!**
If the USA suffered such great losses in Japan they would experience a resurgence in isolationism.
Along with Days of Infamy and End of the Beginning,Turtledove would really make another good duo or trio of books about a theoretical invasion,hell,there's already a few not by Harry on this topic.
5:28 “I’m surprised it isn’t a Harry Turtledove book”. Actually, it is in a Harry Turtledove book. He covers the joint invasion and partition of Japan in his book “Joe Steele”.
This is an interesting topic, one I've been fascinated about. But I'd like to bring up another point of view onto it.
So, basically, the actual chances of Operation Downfall actually happening are pretty slim. Keep in mind, neither side wanted to go through with the invasion. Japan KNEW they couldn't win. The whole idea of Ketsugō was not to actually win the war, but to scare the allies so they'd declare an armistice. So if the allies were still willing to go through, Japan may have just surrendered right then and there. Also, when it came to Japan's surrender, it was much more than just the atom bombs. There was also the Soviet Union invading Manchuria, which was actually what got Japan's military to meet up for surrender in the first place. Which even Douglas MacArthur said was true. And let's say all this failed, and Japan was ready for an invasion, no matter what. The chances of the Soviet Union getting involved are also fairly slim. It's *possible* but I feel like it wouldn't be very successful.
When it comes to Europe and tensions, I don't really know if there'd be a nuke less cold war or not. I'd say, maybe Churchill and Patton decide to go through with Operation Unthinkable, perhaps it succeeds, but perhaps it also fails, and a WWIII type thing happens. London is back on lockdown. Europeans have to brace for yet another war, but this time with their former ally. It'd be like WWII but with more modern equipment, say, it's the 1950's or 60's so we have jet air raids now. Vietnam is far more devastating, with more deaths on both sides. Instead of the Cuban missile crisis it's a fear of regular air raids or something. There'd probably be little way of telling how much the Korean war would be same or different, but it's fun to theorize.
Nuclear power generation may still exist.
THE KING HAS RETURNED!
Alternate history idea: What if African colonization never happened?
tribes with guns killing each other with Europe trading with them on coasts lol
Actually, Stalin stuck to deal made in Teheran in 1943: Start war with Japan 3 months after defeat of Germany and go in Korea only to 38th parallel.
Make a video on if Pat Buchanan won the presidential election of 1992
0:47 someone else would’ve continued her work due to her working with a lot of scientists so the Manhattan project being a failure is probably the only way to stop existence of nuclear weapons.
Why does every one say that Japan would not surrendered. There are more than a few history books out there with good sources that say that the Japanese were already planning on surrendering. The bombs just made them surrender about a month early
If its true they planned on surrendering do you really think we would know that to the US it would still be a justified move
As much as I know they had always one big condition. The emperor was not to be touched but the americans refused this condition every time. so No if the USA would still say no to that then the japanese would fight to the bitter end I would guesse
The atomic bombs did not influence japans surrender. Japan’s wartime prime minister Kantaro Suzuki: "If we miss the chance today, the Soviet Union will take not only Manchuria, Korea and Sakhalin, but also Hokkaido. We must end the war while we can deal with the United States."
nukes are so important
Whatifalthist: 10 million is astronomical
China and ussr: AM I A JOKE TO U
2:30 the emperor is what mattered and after Okinawa he was already considering surrender
2:55 those are Chinese soldiers btw.
America didn't needed nukes to beat Japan with little casualties, conventional bombs and bombers were enough to create the same devastation.
"The American's plan was to re-arm the old Nazi military and use it against it's old enemies"
That's exactly what happened in this timeline.
Yes. Arming groups of people that are enemies of your enemy has worked out quite well for the us. 👀👀👀
@@ystudbeast3 most Germans knew what the Germans had done and where disgusted. Like 99.99% of German troops where Nazis just Germans Fighting for there nations.
@@rbvfeehfbudenrj Yeah im just being facetious lol
Whatifalthist, not much to say, great video. Thats a scary thought that ww3 was literally a few months/weeks/days away from the end of ww2.
The Japanese were indeed ready to surrender, especially to America and the Allies, rather than the Soviet Union, because they abhorred communism that much. They sent constant offers of surrender to the American government, but Truman kept finding excuses (mainly the fact the Japanese wanted to keep their emperor, they were even willing to relegate him to a mere figurehead) to deny them. In truth, Truman desperately wanted to use the atomic bomb, because he also was scared of the Soviet Union, and he wanted to intimidate Stalin with the power of the bomb. Therefore, he bombed Japan twice, which definitely caused the Japanese to surrender unconditionally. It may also be noted that firebombing raids had already caused many more casualties than the two bombs did. After the surrender, Truman revealed to Stalin that they were the ones who had manufactured the bomb. This reportedly didn't impress Stalin, because his spies had already kept him updated on the progress of the Manhattan Project. In the end, the Americans didn't even have any problem with allowing the Japanese to surrender or keep their emperor, they just wanted to impress the Soviets, which didn't really work.
This is wildly inaccurate
Please do a retrograde rotation earth, and the changes in climate, and how that would influence human development.
Then Japan would be the land of the setting sun
They could have used the nuclear bomb as a demonstration first. Can it not be said that a detonation over Tokyo Bay would sufficiently test the destructive potential of the Little Boy bomb while demonstrating unequivocally to fascist Japan that, despite at most a few hundred to a few thousand casualties? If not, there was always Fat Man to drop if they still wouldn't surrender.
One of your best work
How about just blockading Japan and keep firebombing it? More people died in Tokyo Firebombings than died in the Nuclear bombs... Also Russia would invade Norway 100% at the end of WW2 Russia had liberated almost half of the country from Nazi regime but then they pulled out. If the war had continued then they're need the coastline of Norway to deploy ships, just as the Germans wanted it for.
Somehow, someway, you know a more powerful weapon is going to be created by blast area
What if the USA colonized Canada
that makes no sense
They tried. Check out "War of 1812". It went poorly for the U.S.
what if USA joined central powers would lead into this, because it would have been an all out invasion not just a small clash like what happened in the war of 1812
You mean conquered not colonized right? Canada is so big in area that its hard to control, but the mismatch in military power has typically been real huge. If huge numbers of Canadians wanted to wage a guerilla war across the country they could bleed the Americans for years maybe decades but they could never directly defeat the Americans in large scale operations, unless the Americans made a blunder and even then the next wave of US forces would clear up the winners of the last battle. A determined enough guerilla campaign might cause a US loss the way Vietnam was a loss (loss of will, and just say hell with it and go home), or it might be bloody crushed (assuming an nasty enough America to invade Canada in the fist place) Either way a lot of death and destruction for not much benefit to anyone. Better to just trade with Canada.
@@theshadedofinnsmouth6243 went porly for both sides
The USSR had no navel assets in the Far East, the red army had no experience in amphibious operations, and no landing craft to facilitate them. The Soviets would have no envolvment in the invasion and occupation of Japan therefore no communist Japan.
You messed up a bit in the Okinawa Part by pointing the wrong island and sayig it had 1/3 the area of Rhode Island when they're around the same size.
Drex
No, he was right. Okinawa is about 466 square miles, while Rhode Island is about 1,212 square miles.
Thus Okinawa is roughly 38.4488% the size of Rhode Island
I can't see why Germany would be more militaristic as Soviet Union would be neutralizied in the 50ts
11:00 Actually o believe the reason why Germany has been forgiven for WW2 but not Japan is cultural
Western culture is very pro-forgiveness while this is a foreign concept to Asian culture which is very shame-based
Therefore Japan can never be forgiven unless it stops existing ... this is why S. Korea , which geopolitically is in it's best interest to reconcile with Japan , refuses to do so
I think there is another factor too. For example the nazis and Imperial Japan were very cruel in their invasions to the civilians but it was a bit different with Germany.
Germany saw the Jews and Slavs as sub humans and treated the civilians and soldiers from the eastern front like shit. The eastern front was a nightmare of war crimes compared to the western front. Therefore the lesser degree of war crimes might have influenced why Western Europe is more forgiving of Germany since they didn’t see the same degree of war crimes as on the East front or the Japanese invasions
Did you just call Joseph Stalin's right hand man adorable? 6:36
"nuclear weapons save lives!"
The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki literally saved millions of both Americans and Japanese. There was no better option, so yes they did save lives
Im sure the Allies would have gotten more out of that peace deal boi.
-"Practically" only usage of nuclear weapons was on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Are there others we don't know about?
-Your assumption that Japan wouldn't surrender and Operation Downfall would have to happen without nukes is traditionalist thinking. I don't know of the military "almost imprisoning" the Emperor for considering surrender, especially since him wanting to surrender was why they did! Contrary to popular belief, atomic weapons were not so shocking that the Japanese finally gave up. The months of fire bombings started to turn their attitudes, then the Soviet invasion of Manchuria destroyed their hope of negotiating better terms, then the military finally asked the Emperor what he thought, and he said surrender. It's possible that invasion would still have happened, but not assured and other factors besides the bombs influenced it.
-The Soviets were not "planning" an invasion of Hokkaido. Stalin said he wanted to do it, but there was little "planning" beyond that. Even if they went through with it (and that's a big 'if' ua-cam.com/video/RwBh4p08tRs/v-deo.html) it definitely would not have happened "alongside" the American invasion. The first part of Downfall was planned for late 1945 and everyone knew the Soviets were woefully unprepared to carry out a massive amphibious assault that soon. And no, you can't just say "Stalin was so nuts he would have ordered it then regardless of reason."
-"Many" historians do not seriously believe Beria poisoned Stalin. That's a rumor and basically gossip.
-Stalin may have believed war was inevitable with the West, but he was not eager to start another confrontation, especially so soon after the WWII and even without nuclear weapons. The 50s would not have been "the perfect time" for another total war, as the Soviets had just lost nearly a fifth of their population and even with a large army would not have been assured of victory. Traditional balance of power dynamics could definitely have kept the peace until after Stalin's death, and simply saying "Stalin would have invaded" seems like just something to make the scenario more interesting.
-Climate change may not be that much worse. The major boom in nuclear power plants happened during and after the 70s oil crises, so even without a consensus on global warming there would still have been a demand for energy not relied upon from the Middle East. Maybe wind and solar power development would have started sooner to fill the void simply as an oil alternative without nuclear power to take the place.
Youre right in every word you wrote. But can you please check Hirohito's surrender speech? You will see what he thought about atomic bombs.
@@aliemreazgn3634 I think that was more about political cover. Who could blame him for surrendering in the face of some new superweapon? He called them "most cruel bombs" but unless you want to argue that without that maybe the mutiny against him would have been successful, I think he still would have gotten everyone to follow his command to stop fighting.
@@creatoruser736 When the cities were nuked and everything in it was destroyed in second by a single bomb. Hirohito saw that Ketsu-Go had no change while enemy can destroy cities with one single bomb. Japanese army and people would continue to preparations for a mainland defence even if Japan didnt surrender but Hirohito saw that with atomic bombs, Japanese nation could be removed from earth. It wasnt easy to produce A-bombs yes but during that time no Japanese could know it, maybe Hirohito thought that Americans can change their normal bombs with atomic bombs and destroy all the cities that Japan had.
@@aliemreazgn3634 How many bombs it took to level a city was irrelevant at that point. Fire bombings had destroyed entire cities for months, with the raid on Tokyo killing more people than either of the A-bombings. The Americans had air superiority so how many planes and bombs it took wasn't an issue. Still, it was after the Soviet intervention that it was realized all hope was lost, and still the surrender decision was made nearly a week after those events, so he didn't come to the decision abruptly. It's entirely plausible that having the cities fire bombed and the Soviets still attacking Manchuria would get the Emperor to accept US demands without the "shock" of the atomic bombs. They weren't even considered that shocking since the Japanese were accustomed to having cities destroyed, and the method didn't change much for them.
@@creatoruser736 Youre all wrong, you forget the fact that Fire bombings lasted for months while destroying a city took second with atomic bombs. Japan knew that Soviets could not invade mainland but they knew the biggest threat: atomic bombs. When you lose 1 city by only 1 bomber and 1 bomb then you realize youre doomed. As Hirohito states in his speech "Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization." he definiteliy states that there is no point to continue to fight while enemy can destroy cities by only 1 bomb. Soviet invasion of manchuria wasnt something big, it was already expected by Japanese they were preparing for mainland defence not manchuria or China, their last effort to destroy China was Ichi-Go and it failed when China didnt surrender. After Iwo Jima Japan started to transport all their qualified equipments to mainland for mainland defence against US but they realised that defence had no point when enemy had atomic bombs that can remove thousands of people in one second. "fire bombings caused more damage than atomic bombs" is just dogma and simple logic but when you research a little deeper you will learn. After first atomic bomb Japanese military government and Hirohito thought it was one time thing but after second bomb Hirohito realised there was no point to continue to fight.
7:11
Greece and Turkey: *Why hello there.*
What's up. I clicked so fast there was only one view
So basically Korea and Japan swap places
I have no objection to the content of this video but the audio is unreasonably quiet. Even at maximum volume I am struggling to hear this over ambient noise.
Ryt bro
At the good side of things we wouldn't have k-pop today
Most absurd West bias scenario that i heard of
Suggestion, what if the allies reached Berlin first and Eastern Europe?
You ignore one major point that invalidates your entire analysis: people in Italy, France and Greece were ready for a communist revolution
The loyalty of the allies wouldn't be a problem for the soviets but for the NATO which would probably have to face a harsh guerrilla against former ww2 communist partisans
The were small populations of Communists in those countries, but the West wasn't trying to conquer Italy, France, and Greece, so the people were less worried about having US troops in the country. The Soviets, on the other hand, were clearly trying to control Eastern Europe. Look at our time line. There were rebellions in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, but there were no similar sized rebellions in Western Europe.
@@greywolf7577 Look at the attempted revolution in italy in 1948 and the greek civil war
If nukes never existed, then ww3 would be less scary and existentially terrifying.
Poor calculation. By the end of the WW2 USSR have had more tanks, plains and seasoned manpower then the whole Western Europe combined because it went full War-Economy. If not for the nukes, USSR would've conquered the entire Europe in no time. The main goal for the US to nuke Japan was to show Stalin what's gonna happen to Moscow should he decide to pass Alba.
*I'm not a USSR admirer, quite opposite in fact. Just looking at this possibility realistically.
The world would be a lot more tense and more aggressive
Japan would be divided and Europe would be a battlefield . The Cold War wouldn’t be a Cold War but a hot war : world war 3.
You had me, right up until you suggested the soviets were at all capable of launching a successful invasion of the home islands. The US would not provide them one ship to occupy any part of mainland Japan and they couldn't manufacture the ships fast enough and get the experience needed to not instantly fail.
The Soviets would probably take France and a maybe more of Italy