That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate b

That it a very strange interpretation of your own links. Essentially, what those articles were saying is that Japan was holding out on surrender to negotiate better terms, hopeful that consistent with the 5 year neutrality agreement with the Soviets the Soviets would assist in negotiations with the US. Short of obtaining the more desirable terms Japan seemed to be more than willing to accept the loses, in fact their leaders are quoted as saying the loses would only strengthen and unify the Country further. You can claim Japan was going to surrender, but they were not, the Soviet invasion was helpful in the sense that it made clear the Soviets were not going to assist in negotiations, so there was no more reason for a holdout on diplomatic terms, but as a result Japan was beholden to the military option over unconditional surrender, until the 2nd bomb, and again even then surrender may not have occurred if the coup was successful against the Emperor. Finally, if it were really the Soviet invasion, you think the Emperor would have been more inclined to acknowledge them, rather in his surrender speech he mentions only one concern, specifically: "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is, indeed, incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, not only would it result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization."