Any truth to the argument that even without the atomic bomb, Japan would have surrendered because of the soviets invading

by ytruhg

This has probably been asked before, but I couldn't find it.

I am always seeing arguments that the atomic bomb is not what ended the war, but rather the soviets invading and without the bomb Japan would have surrendered anyway.

I have also seen arguments that the entire reason to use the bomb was to scare the soviets.

Is there any truth to this?

Thank you

jschooltiger

This section of our FAQ has some good threads on this topic -- untangling this is tricky business, even for experts. This thread in particular is useful for the differing perspectives that /u/ScipioAsina , /u/restricteddata, and /u/t-o-k-u-m-e-i bring to the question.