Can anyone comment on this article:

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-bomb-didn-t-beat-japan-stalin-did?utm_source=pocket-newtab

It presents an argument that the nuclear bombings of Japan had little to do with their surrender.

The main arguments seem to be that

​

1. the fire bombings and other bombings of Japanese cities in sum were far more destructive than the nuclear bombings
2. Japan was preparing to surrender anyways
3. the timing of the events does not draw a clear line between the bombings and the surrender
4. Japan's surrender was all really about fear of the Soviets, and Japan's non-aggression pact with them was set to soon expire (but actually it also states that pact would not expire until April 1946, which is actually a long way off from august 1945)

​

I am not asking if this was 'right' or 'wrong' because clearly that is a much different question, and if we want to open that can of worms we need to talk about bombing, both conventional and nuclear, of civilian centers during WW2 in general, and the horrors that visited upon those civilians.

Rather, I am wondering if this article really does present an open and shut case for the fact that drawing a line between nukes and surrender is pretty much false.

And if so... would Truman and his advisors have known as much? And again if so... why drop the bomb then? To threaten the Soviets? To establish a new world order? Other reasons?