How curious, especially since the Japanese surrendered shortly after the bombs were dropped. Are you proposing that the atomic weapons were trivial and did not lead to the Japanese surrender? Undoubtedly the Russian invasion was problematic for the Japanese, but it was more like someone breaking into one’s house while the Japanese were being held at gunpoint by the American-led coalitionI wouldn't say that it's irrelevant at all.
If the argument that the Soviet intervention was by itself sufficient to induce the Japanese surrender holds water - and I find it to be quite persuasive - then it has some massive implications. First, it would give strong weight to the widely argued view that in hindsight the dropping of the bombs was tragic and unnecessary. Second, it undercuts a great deal of the strategic thinking that has related to nuclear weapons and their utility - based on the narrative about the supposed success of the bombs in bringing a speedy end to the Pacific War.
I’m always a bit surprised when posters insist that it was the Russian invasion of China was somehow more important and crucial than homeland cities being destroyed by nuclear weapons. That strikes me as just ridiculous on the face of it.