Fair enough too, just can't see anything at all in there dealing with the suggestion that losing Stalin as a possible mediator to enhance any surrender terms was the crunch. Along with the need to fight the war on two fronts. As in yours it says they figured they had lost, yet were set on fighting to the end despite the destruction of the cities. The argument the bombs only meant two more cities on top of the others, and still no surrender was on the cards, feels a solid one to me. Then when Stalin opened the 2nd front and the option of him getting good surrender terms was lost they decided enough.
Finally, one other fact about timing creates a striking problem. On Aug. 8, Foreign Minister Togo Shigenori went to Premier Suzuki Kantaro and asked that the Supreme Council be convened to discuss the bombing of Hiroshima, but its members declined. So the crisis didn’t grow day by day until it finally burst into full bloom on Aug. 9. Any explanation of the actions of Japan’s leaders that relies on the “shock” of the bombing of Hiroshima has to account for the fact that they considered a meeting to discuss the bombing on Aug. 8, made a judgment that it was too unimportant, and then suddenly decided to meet to discuss surrender the very next day. Either they succumbed to some sort of group schizophrenia, or some other event was the real motivation to discuss surrender. https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=173423896
That argument feels more real to me. No way of knowing for sure.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
