Article writers don't come up with the headlines. In this case the headline does the author a bad disservice by making his piece seem simple-minded. It isn't. Its strongest parts come before he even gets to discussing the Soviet invasion. Those are (a) his dissection of the timeline by which surrender unfolded, and (b) his case that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not outliers in the destruction of Japanese cities and thus not game-changers in the minds of Japanese leaders. When he does turn to the Soviet invasion, his argument isn't that the Japanese surrendered because they were overwhelmed by it, but rather because it closed off their remaining strategic options.

Agree or disagree, these are serious arguments that deserve to be met with more than platitudes and belief-repetition.