You cant "blockade" a country you had already been blockading after youv already destroyed their navy and commercial shipping. At the time Japan was importing no meaningful foodstuffs or industrial materials. Heck they even had to use their submarines to try and sneak rice into the few island garrisons they had left. They had a population ready to attack with pitchforks and were already only eating what they could grow. A blockade was not an option cause one was already in place.
Sounds like another Democratic system Ive heard of 
BTW check your sources, in 1932 they recieved about 33%, 2nd only to Von Hindenburg, and then later in the year almost 38%, "popular vote in a Parlimentary election not reichstag votes". These votes are what gave Hitlers party all those Reichstag seats.The one who actually appointed Hitler chancellor was Von Hindenburg. The President.
LOL, well I lived in Turkey under martial Law, a country that lined up 1 milion Armenians and shot them before WW1. I think your overestimating my underestimating.
................ 
The key is to see it from no ones point of view.
There is no such thing as objective history. It's not that all history contains hidden messages, it's that those who write history will inevitably incorporate anachronisms (e.g., it's hard to really wrap your head around slavery if you've never seen it, etc.,). History's very nature is the compression of the trillions of events of the past into an easy-to-read package via essays, books, and magazines. As the compression grows, what may have been a few misplaced words can repaint an entire period. Take this, for example:
At dawn, Tecumseh saw the the soldiers advancing on his position.If I change that to, say:
At dawn, British forces made their advance on Tecumseh's rebel army.Though both of these statements convey the same facts, the first makes the reader feel like Tecumseh was just defending himself, while the second makes the British army look like they were just trying to restore order. If Tecumseh gets only 10 sentences (common for most US History books) then readers might get the wrong idea because of one little slip up. Nobody is perfect, and even historians go through the little ups and downs that we do. For instance, a historian might not treat the British too kindly only because the cashier at the Dunkin Donuts where he/she got his/her coffee was rude and British. It wouldn't be purposeful, but this phenomenon, called projection, is part of human psychology and it along with other such phenomena can and will foil any attempt at 'objective' history.
The Reichstag election gave the Nazi party (not Hitler) ~30% of the votes, however, it wasn't like that until the Great Depression. For a long time, it hovered, as I said, around ~15%. The German people may or may not have been antisemitic, but hatred was downplayed in Nazi election rhetoric. The reparations were very much a burden, and when the Great Depression came they became unbearable due to inflation and a general economic collapse. These reparations were useful to Hitler because he could stir nationalism by saying that he wouldn't repay them, and instead revive Germany's flagging economy. On that note, his greatest support was from the lower middle class, teachers, public servants, clerks; those who had lost the most in the inflation of the Great depression. If you read the very end of the Wikipedia article on the Nazi Party, you'll see this:
...support for the Nazis had fallen to 33.1%, suggesting that the Nazi surge had passed its peak – possibly because the worst of the Depression had passed, possibly because some middle-class voters had supported Hitler in July as a protest, but had now drawn back from the prospect of actually putting him into power.
One can clearly see that Hitler and the Nazi party were not supported due to racial hatred or nationalist aims of the German people, but rather that they wanted to protest the non-functionality of their political system and get their economy moving again. In fact, Hitler's harsh rhetoric may have put voters off as the worst of the Depression passed, making the potential damage of putting his dangerous ideas into practice worse than letting the economy stay where it was. Think of it this way, if you're starving, you'll do just about anything for anyone who promises to feed you. However, if you find food, you'll start to pay more attention to their other qualities. The same was true for the German people of the 1930s.
When did you live in Turkey? What was going on? Why was martial law in place?
Do you really think that the average Gen and Senjo were going to do something like that? That's like saying that citizens of the US are all really good at football because in the fall they all wear colorful jerseys, train their kids to play, and imitate football players. On the contrary, most of the US is in no shape to be playing football. If you look at the Japanese training films, you see that most of the people with pitchforks, etc., were schoolchildren, who really didn't have any choice in whether they wanted to do the training routine or not. If push had really come to shove, then the the vast majority of the civilian population would have just shut their doors and hid in bunkers. Perhaps a few determined ones would go out to the beaches, but the road system just wouldn't be able to handle it. You'd have to move millions in a matter of hours. Let's do the math.
The horizon is about 2 nautical miles when viewed from the beach. If we combine the speeds of landing craft and fleet, we get a speed of around 7 knots. You'd have 2/7ths of an hour, or about 8-9 minutes to get all the people to the correct beach at the correct time. Needless to say, bombing nearby cities would certainly pin the civilians down enough to keep them in their shelters. As for actually conquering the island itself, take Tokyo and the whole thing comes crashing down like a house of cards. The emperor was the lynchpin of the whole operation, capture or kill him and there would be nothing left. That's not to say that anything here would be easy, but millions of casualties is a gross overestimate. It's like doing a third of the Holocaust in a few days. That's tough even if you
really get cracking with firebombing and 40s era nukes.
The blockade could have been very well sustained, and don't underestimate the effectiveness of the OSS regarding assassinations. The allies came within a hair's breadth of killing Hitler. Furthermore, if Japan can't do anything to anyone anymore, then for all intents and purposes, the war is over. What difference does it make if they never officially 'gave up,'? The same is true in Korea, and I don't see any large scale military operations going on there (barring the occasional chest thumping).
Raphael, I watched the link(s), and I 100% stand behind my statement. From my point of view, the film portrayed the US as aggressors and incapable of stopping our attacks on their "defenseless" populace.
The japanese did 100% earn the ending of their war of aggression. Regardless of the using of nukes, the continued fire bombing campaigns, or an all out campaign to destroy the food supply, the war needed to be ended with minimal allied casualties, and it was. Case closed. The rest is pure semantics.
So you're saying that in a country with a non-representative government the people are responsible for their government's actions to the point that heavily populated non-essential areas can be nuked if their government messes up? If so, then in that sense war is "no holds barred," and we should view events such as 9/11 and Hiroshima as part of the bargain. The intent of the aggressors in both cases was exactly the same: Reduce the enemies morale by killing civilians and destroying property to the point that they surrender. If not, then we should apologize for the nukes and be rightly ticked off by 9/11. Obviously, the second case is true, and that brings me to my next point. In dealing the deathblow of a war, the idea is to reduce casualties on
both sides in order to prevent hard feelings later on.
-Penguin
