[David Isaac]

I still think we could have had Japan without the “help” of the Russians. Without Russian presence in the Pacific theater, Mao would almost certainly not have succeeded, Kim Il Sung (N. Lorea) and Ho Chi Minh, would not have been what they became. In other words, the whole history of East Asia would have been totally different. This is just an opinion of course, but I believe it is not altogether untenable.

[abb]

I don’t disagree with your opinion. For want of a nail and all that.

I suppose Truman made what he thought was the best decision he could under the circumstances. His decision to use the Bomb should earn his undying gratitude from all Americans, imo.

[jamaksin]

Um ... an old saw.

Imagine, without Lend-Lease Germany and USSR bled each other to death; without aid to China (US and USSR) - Mao and Nationalists fight Japan to a stalmate ...

Many "what if" scenarios ... The real winner of WWII was the USSR and what became Communist China - thank you very much FDR and his Adminstration.

Where the idea of US/Britian being the policeman of the world comes from ... is another story. As is the "flexible" ideal of "national interest" ...

[GeorgefromGeorgia]

You are probably right about the negative presence of the Red Army in Manchuria. The result of this was to provide weapons to Kim and Mao. Who knows what would have happened in both countries?
I have been reading Churchill’s “The Second World War” and it details Churchill’s and FDR’s desires to bring in the SU into the war against Japan after Germany was defeated. Before the A bomb, the Western Allies thought it might sustain as much as a million casualties assaulting the Japanese main islands. Kamikaze bombers would have made any amphibious assault very costly.
Had the Japanese not surrendered, I think the USA only had one more bomb immediately available to use on Japan. I guess we could have bombed Tokyo.
The Soviet attack on Manchuria did push the Japanese into surrendering, but probably not as much as the bomb.