@shadowen Said
I don't believe there is any evidence that supports the contention that the dropping of the two atomic bombs significantly influenced Japan's decision to surrender. Indeed just about all US military leaders from Marshall to Eisenhower voiced the opinion that dropping the atomic bombs was militarily unnecessary. General Curtis LeMay for example stated shortly after the nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan that " The war would have been over in two weeks...The atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all".
We know from surviving notes that the Supreme Council didn't even meet until three days after Hiroshima was bombed, and when they met the US use of the atomic bomb barely rated a mention. Instead the focus was on the Soviet Union. Indeed the Supreme Council thought that the bombing of Hiroshima was not important enough to warrant a special meeting. General Anami stated on August 13 that the atomic bombings were no more menacing than the fire-bombing that Japan had endured for months. What was far more menacing however was the prospect of an imminent Soviet invasion of the Japanese home islands and what that might mean for the Emperor.
Since early 1945 the allies knew that Japan was looking for a way to surrender. They wished to do so in a way that enabled them to save face and that would preserve the status and position of the Emperor. The US and UK however demanded unconditional surrender and so the Japanese fought on. Up until the Soviets declared war on Japan the Government still hoped that the allies could be persuaded to accept a conditional surrender. Once the Soviet's declared war and invaded Manchuria and Sakhalin Island however Japan's options were limited, and they were time pressed to come to a decision, as Soviet troops could be in a position to invade Japan's home islands before the end of August.
The Japanese were primarily concerned that the Soviets would execute the Emperor and the rest of the Royal family. In the end they decided that surrendering to the allies was the lesser of two evils re the potential fate of the Emperor. Ironically the allies agreed not to put the Emperor on trial and to indeed preserve his basic position AFTER the Japanese agreed to surrender unconditionally. Had the allies made it known to the Japanese how the Emperor would be treated after Japan surrendered the war may have finished months earlier.
The reality is that by the time the two atomic bombs were dropped the outcome of the war was already a foregone conclusion and that an invasion of the Japanese home islands by the allies wasnt even necessary. There were however already growing tensions with the Soviets and the US government wanted Stalin to know they had this powerful new weapon as post war Europe and Asia were being shaped.
Anyway, I don't think it was a case of killing two birds with the one stone as I don't believe the dropping of the two atomic bombs was in any way the catalyst for Japan's decision to finally accept unconditional surrender for the reasons given.
Having said all of the above this is going off topic so I won't look to debate the issue further in this thread. Might look at creating a specific thread to discuss this in the history channel.
You're saying there's a chance?