[pdonis]

> The emperor directly mentions the atomic bomb in his address...He only tacitly mentions the battle situation

I know that. And I said why: to save face. He didn't want to tell the Japanese people that the Soviet invasion of Manchuria was the reason. The atomic bomb made a much better reason for public consumption. That doesn't mean it was the actual reason that drove the decision, which was made in private.

[themaninthedark]

So without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out and the fighting would have continued.

[pdonis]

> without the atomic bomb, the emperor and the peace faction did not have a way out

That's not clear either. Without the atomic bomb they might well have found another way to save face.

[themaninthedark]

If the argument is that "We can't say that the atomic bombs were the catalyst for Japan surrendering because the surrender happened after a bombing and Soviet war declaration therefor they are confounding factors" then the same holds true for the argument that the Soviet invasion was the catalyst for surrender.

Now I will say that I have not read Hasegawa's book but Wikipedia says that it is "challenging the widely accepted orthodox view that the atomic bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the most decisive factor in Japan's decision to surrender ending the war against Japan."

It will be interesting to read but it looks like that it is not the accepted theory and that primary sources from the era were destroyed on all sides.