http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/the_bomb_didnt_beat_japan_nuclear_world_war_ii?page=0,0

Small excerpt: 

Put yourself in the shoes of the emperor. You've just led your country through a disastrous war. The economy is shattered. Eighty percent of your cities have been bombed and burned. The Army has been pummeled in a string of defeats. The Navy has been decimated and confined to port. Starvation is looming. The war, in short, has been a catastrophe and, worst of all, you've been lying to your people about how bad the situation really is. They will be shocked by news of surrender. So which would you rather do? Admit that you failed badly? Issue a statement that says that you miscalculated spectacularly, made repeated mistakes, and did enormous damage to the nation? Or would you rather blame the loss on an amazing scientific breakthrough that no one could have predicted? At a single stroke, blaming the loss of the war on the atomic bomb swept all the mistakes and misjudgments of the war under the rug. The Bomb was the perfect excuse for having lost the war. No need to apportion blame; no court of enquiry need be held. Japan's leaders were able to claim they had done their best. So, at the most general level the Bomb served to deflect blame from Japan's leaders.

that article is way wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvUghpKrrzY

I always found it an interesting theory, but one with it's own major flaws. To go in order of the article...

1) Timing. The article glazed over this... but the surrender vote was in fact. Deadlocked. Members of the Japanese peace faction directly credited the Nuclear Bomb as what allowed the emperor to push the peace option.

They called the nuclear bombings a "Gift from Heaven" which... even under American occupation would be a ridiculous thing to claim otherwise.

Fear of Russian invasion making their defense plan useless may have been what caused the surrender vote to come about.... but it wasn't what pushed through the final surrender.

Also, i'll note the article makes the awkward arguement that both the Japanese knew too much early, and too little late.  (Though doesn't consider for example, some people knowing a lot early, and others having to be read in on what a nucler bomb was from those who already knew.)

2) Scale, ignores the main fear of nuclear weapons, even before they got big. Which is that it literally only takes one bomb. There is no real defense or chance of inflicting casualties.

Sure the Nuclear bombs weren't near the worst bombings to occur in the war, they however were the most "unfair."

At this point instead of trying to cause deaths here and there and negotiate for a better peace it just becomes something a lot more hopeless... even in the terms of just trying to lose but eek out something of value.




Russia was no doubt a major fear and played a big part in it... but Nuclear weapons in the end seems like what forced their hand.

Funny that they would rather surrender to USA than Russia considering all their anti USA propaganda that led to citizens jumping off cliffs of Okinawa with their children in fear of surrender.  The higher ups obviously knew that USA would treat Japan better than Russia.  I'm actually more interested in the supposed war of USA vs Russia right after WW2 (aka what led to the Cold War).  The atomic bomb probably stopped Russia in its tracks (T-34 tracks to be precise).  Without it I believe Russia would have declared war on USA, England, and the rest of the Allies to control the rest of Europe.

Why exactly was there even a cold war? Didn't USSR and USA team up to stop the Nazi Germany?

They did but even during the summits (right before the downfall of Germany completely Stalin was at odds with FDR and Churchill).  Just look at this photo and the body language obviously shows Stalin not giving a shit about FDR and Churchill (okay it might not be that easy to call it in one photo but it is the truth).  USA didn't know if Russia or USSR would stop with Germany or continue on.  It was all up in the air.  Germany and Russia afflicted the most casualties in the WW2 and Russia learned a lot on how to properly fight during WW2.  They also had the best tank ever made for its time (mainly due to mass production (the most produced tank ever) but it also could take a few shots thanks to its sloping armor, the T-34).  USA didn't really like Communism that much either considering the red scare that happened after WW2.  It was pretty much a sin to be considered Communist in the USA after WW2 (just like it was in Germany before and during WW2).

Look how standoffish Stalin looks.  He wanted the entire Europe to the USSR.

Imagine you and your friend consider yourselves bff and you tell each other all your secrets. Days later you find out he was developing and used a Nuclear Weapon and god knows what else. Would you still trust him? He does everything to stop you from making friendships and launch global proxy wars in countries that are friend of yours.

If I remember correctly the Pro-War group in Japan was going to do a coup de tat, if the Pro-Dialogue group persuaded the Emperor to surrender which I believe was going to be the decision but when the Nukes were dropped that ended that plot and Japan finally surrendered. Sorry, my history is kind of bad.

Oh so Stalin wanted Europe aswell? I thought Hitler was the only one that wanted Europe. Why did he want Europe though? I know that Hitler wanted to expand Germania and be in control with his racial policies. I guess Stalin was just power hungry. And what was the red scare?

Stalin was extremely power hungry.  I have no doubt that he definetely had his eyes on Europe wanting it to become apart of the Soviet block. 

Red Scare -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Scare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism (part of the second Red Scare)