230 out of 600 odd seats,which is the biggest majority that had been seem in the 15 or so years of the post WW1 democracy.
So some 65 percent of Germans never voted for Hitler, they totally got what they deserved obviously. *sarcasm off* This was my main point. Didn't the NSDAP also get a lot of those votes with lots of intimidation of the electorate by the SA?
So where are the opinion polls then? Please point me to them - I know there were some done by the Gestapo but I'd consider thesee hardly reliable - from what I had gathered judging opinion within Germany during the second world war is almost impossible due to the Nazi parties tight grip on almost every facet of life.
Ian Kershaw stated in one of his books that 35 percent of Germans claimed never to have supported Hitler whilst 16 percent supported him up until the war broke out. So there's half the population against him already.
Both the German leaders and the Japanese leaders saw themselves as a superior race to those they were fighting....how do you reason with that?....the Atomic bomb did a job and did it effectively.
There is however a little bit of a problem with your theory, it has been argued that Japan had already decided to surrender before the bomb was dropped and that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were simply displays of force to the Soviets.
It wasn't a war like we've had in recent years, it was a war to roll back aggressors who invaded, subjugated and murdered across Asia and Europe. It's harsh but it's difficult to know what the alternative is
So, what we did in India then.
Do you feel the same way about the idea of India nuking us in the 1800's if they somehow got the bomb?
Without the atomic bombs he might have made his last combat drop into Japan. Would I be here today?
Yes because they had already decided to surrender due to the previous B-29 bombing campaigns and were in the process of trying to get as favorable terms as they could. If the Americans had not insisted on unconditional surrender and left the Japanese emperor alone, then peace could have been brokered without the bomb.
Good old American war crimes hey? 
Straight from the horses mouth -
"I was against it on two counts. First, the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing. Second, I hated to see our country be the first to use such a weapon." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Enjoying my history troll today
Since the thread has moved away from raids in London;
So some 65 percent of Germans never voted for Hitler, they totally got what they deserved obviously.
Under a system of PR, yes actually, they did.You can't deny that he was elected by the simple method of getting more votes than any other party.And by your definition of Government above he had the mandate to rule.Hitler was also not the first person to use article 48 "The smoking gun." Indeed,it was increasingly the only way to actually govern in Germany by the 1930's (used iirc at least 20 times in 1931)
I don't know what you mean by opinion polls, I don't really trust any stats gathered in Germany post Reichstag fire... But I will say that the suggestion that only 16% of Germans supported Hitler until the war broke out would suprise me in the same way that "nobody" knew about the camps,despite the Jews being a source of jokes about cheap soap/lack of coal.
Most Germans I know admit their parents or grandparents were supporters "generally" of the Nazi party. Specific things they say they didn't approve of but it's interesting to me that they do seem to have a wide base of support (insomuch as it's not a mass poll).
So, what we did in India then.Do you feel the same way about the idea of India nuking us in the 1800's if they somehow got the bomb?
Well ignoring the fact that we'd have had PLENTY of notice had they been a historically equivalent military power to the USA in the 40s, you'd have to say it'd be fair game. Nice try though.
Yes because they had already decided to surrender due to the previous B-29 bombing campaigns and were in the process of trying to get as favorable terms as they could.
Other than the Eisenhower quote and some other similar quotes (i.e. opinion not actual proof), do you know of any documentary evidence to support this? It's one of the big sticking points and as much as I can't find docs to disprove it (how do you prove the absence of something anyway?) but I can't find any contemporary documents supporting it. [i]Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism by Maddox [/i]supposedly debunks a lot of this but without buying it, who knows and secondly once you get into the morass of revisionism and counter-revisionism you end up going a bit kaesae.
My Paternal Grandfather was a POW of the Japanese. He was bitter. Really, really.
My Granddad was held as a POW in the [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War ]Korean War[/url] (also known as the "Forgotten War"). From what I've heard he managed to escape though. After much family persuasion he actually wrote an un-published book about his time in the war, but doesn't want it published. I really should try and get hold of a copy at some point.
His logic behind signing up was simple for him; he left school just before the start of the war as was given a choice, go down the mines or join the forces. He decided to sign up as he figured that soon enough everyone from the mines would be forced to anyway, and if he join voluntarily before the war actually kicked off he would at least be able to have some choice in where he ended up in the forces.
My aunt's ex was a PoW in the Korean war too. REALLY messed him up and his stories of that and the war in general were definitely not of the heroic Saturday matinee type. Quite horrific to be honest.