[Raynor]

but more the Old Testament type of God who would happily smite you down just for fun

I see. And one instance where Eru does this for fun would be...?

I seriously doubt that Tolkien really believed that children playing at being Orcs meant said kids were by nature 'evil'

They are evil by choice. May I ask if you read it? Or letter #256?

Such a man simply would not kill off children and want us to believe this was 'justified'

One would have to balance the justice of this killing against growing up in a ever increasingly corrupted world, where they would be zombies doing Sauron's work, oppressing others in ways unimaginable, losing every bit of humanity, falling ever lower on the chasm of madness. I wonder if a mother would suffer her children to go about that way.

there were many ordinary Germans during WWII who did not speak out against Hitler - but this does NOT mean they condoned his actions or were 'evil'

No tyrant survives without the consent of his people - I truly believe in this.

Where does she condone the actions of Sauron?

If condone means to disregard without protest or censure, then she did all that. There isn't a single card of dissent, inward or outward, that we know she played. All we know is that in that period the luxury was ever increasing, more so at the top, presumably; there is no mention that she was an exception. There were clear signs that all riches came off at the expense of slavery and oppression - esspecially so concerning the king's house and his riches. All we know is that she enjoyed all that and did nothing about it. Nothing. Meanwhile, the faithfuls remained true to their beliefs, even when they were most often the victims of cruelty. No moral person can live in such times, enjoy the greatest luxury, with no sign of remorse, and still reject the label of evil.

I believe there is a letter mentioning Tolkien's own belief that ordinary Germans should in no way be held 'to blame'.

If you find it, perhaps we can discuss it.

The overwhelming evidence is that this is simply has little if anything to do with the Biblical flood, it is to do with Tolkien's Atlantis complex. That one Noachian figure proceeds from the story certainly does not mean that the story itself is Noachian - that I am afraid is simply speculation as Tolkien tells us the story is not Noachian, it is Atlantean.

Again, I see this as the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. The story can be both, I see no reason why not. I find your argument esspecially questionable, given that you were the first to quote Tolkien as calling this a noachian situation.