Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK, so the first step is for the Germans to successfully invade the British Isles.

Their best chance to do this was in 1940 and they failed. The British home defences got stronger for the next two years until it was completely unrealistic for the Germans to think of invading until they had defeated Russia.

If we are to assume that the Japanese did not attack in the Pacific, the US might not have been brought into the European war (remember it was Hitler that declared war on them) however this would not have compromised their situation together with the Canadians as the "arsenal of democracy". The British Empire could have substituted Imperial personnel for the US they would have lacked.

The Germans would have had to stop the transatlantic convoys by unrestricted submarine warfare. They tried this in history and came close to succeeding, but were stopped by a combination of RN, USN and air force action.

There is no telling that the USA would not have been brought into the war by unrestricted submarine warfare, as happened in the Great War. If this had happened, the Germans would probably have been defeated even quicker than they actually were, since there was no distraction in the Pacific.

The thing is once you go past the end of 1941 the variation from actual history becomes greater and greater and you have to guess more and more. Perhaps the Manhattan Project would have been started by the British, and ended with the atom bombing of Dresden and Hamburg.

Well, exactly. And since we're playing 'Fantasy Wars', how would the war have gone if the British Empire had sided with the Third Reich? The two probably could have existed side-by-side, though it's unfashionable to point that out....

Albatross wrote:Well, exactly. and since we're playing 'Fantasy Wars', how would the war have gone if the British Empire had sided with the Third Reich? The two probably could have existed side-by-side, though it's unfashionable to point that out....

The problem is one of benefit rather than morality. What benefit is there to the UK tagging along with Germany. Britain and Germany go to war over Poland. Germany needs Poland to invade Russia.

Unless the Soviet Union attacks Poland first and Germany 'steps in to secure eastern Europe against the Soviet Union'. That idea may need a better salesman then Ribbentrop in order to sell it to the UK and France though. But if the 'what if...' is that Ribbentrop is up to the job then it may be possible.

Most countries could have worked with germany. At the time the Nazis views weren't that unpopular. It's because of WW2 that we view them as bad.

4M2A wrote:Most countries could have worked with germany. At the time the Nazis views weren't that unpopular. It's because of WW2 that we view them as bad.

Hardly. Nazis made Nazis unpopular. WWI made Germans unpopular.

Ok but the point is that at the time Nazi views weren't seen as unacceptable. Before the war a lot of people liked Hitler

4M2A wrote:Ok but the point is that at the time Nazi views weren't seen as unacceptable. Before the war a lot of people liked Hitler

But they didn't know about his extermination program. Even the Germans didn't know that until the end of the war.

We knew that they were discriminating / killing jews. Anti semetism was very common. Acting upon it was unusual but not seen as a problem.

We attacked for political rather than moral reasons- however this is often overlooked.

But the Germans didn't know that, same as Soviets didn't know how many people Stalin have killed...

It may not have been common knowledge but the governments themselves would have been able to take a good guess at what was happening. We were flying planes over Germany.

There were a lot of germans who did know. Prison staff, high members of the Nazi party, ect...

Albatross wrote:Well, exactly. and since we're playing 'Fantasy Wars', how would the war have gone if the British Empire had sided with the Third Reich? The two probably could have existed side-by-side, though it's unfashionable to point that out....

That has been explored in several SF stories.

Allies decided that Hitler would bring about his own downfall quicker than assassinating him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Foxley

I don't like how hollywood movies have given people the impression that the yanks rescued europe. British and Canadian troops were almost half of those landing on normandy beaches. British Airborne took on the most dangerous sites to land in.

Soviets got to Berlin first. America contributed a lot, but didn't save europe.

I don't think Germany would have the manpower to hold these world powers for long.

This table is informative (Richard Overy, Why the Allies Won:


Look at how little Germany produced relative to the USSR alone!

Germany was never going to really win WW2. They took on most of europe and Russia. While they did significant damage, there is a difference between beating their military in france and taking (and holding) their countries. They didn't have enough people to occupy the taken countries and their tendency to attack the current inhabitants really didn't help.

George Spiggott wrote:

4M2A wrote:Most countries could have worked with germany. At the time the Nazis views weren't that unpopular. It's because of WW2 that we view them as bad.

Hardly. Nazis made Nazis unpopular. WWI made Germans unpopular.

Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

4M2A wrote:We knew that they were discriminating / killing jews.

Not to the extent of The Holocaust. Some escaped from the country and camps and tried to tell what was going on but they were generally dismissed as it was believed that no one would do such things. What simpler times.

Maybe not how extreme it got, but they knew they were doing something with them. The could see the camps. A lot of british citizens got caught up when the Nazis started rounding up "undesirables". They knew something was happening on a huge scale.

Ahtman wrote:Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

How about your tone down a step and do some of your own. They weren't even popular enough in Germany to win an election outright. It would be fair to say they divided opinion in certain circles before the war, it is also right to say their aggressive foreign policy was unpopular outside Germany a few years before September 1939.

Hitlers tactics and disregard of his generals advice = fail.

There was a lot of people in other countries who completely supported his actions. Nazi views weren't extreme for the time and people believe he was justified in what he did. Between politicians Hitler was reasonably popular.

4M2A wrote:There was a lot of people in other countries who completely supported his actions. Nazi views weren't extreme for the time and people believe he was justified in what he did. Between politicians Hitler was reasonably popular.

Yes, especially the Ukrainians, Italiens and French.

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

How about your tone down a step and do some of your own. They weren't even popular enough in Germany to win an election outright. It would be fair to say they divided opinion in certain circles before the war, it is also right to say their aggressive foreign policy was unpopular outside Germany a few years before September 1939.

Isn't the leader of the most popular party the Councillor (Hitler) and the Leader of the country was the President (Hindenburg), I think that's how German democracy worked during those times.

Manstein wrote:NAZI ideology was limited to and pertained only to the expansion of German Lebensraum in the east. Hitler didn't even want to go to war with Britain, not only because they were powerful, but because he respected and liked the British Empire. The NAZIs though the Slavs were an inferior race whose land and resources really belonged to the Aryan Germans.

And yet, once the British entered the war, he planned to conquer the islands. Why not the US as well?

Considering how wildly Hitler's take on his own ideology varied from time period to time period (in Mein Kampf, the US is contemptible, in Zeites Buch is is laudable) it probably isn't wise to base your conclusions only on what Hitler wrote, but to also look at his behavior, and that of those around him.

You're also not giving much credence to the fact that there a very lively scholarly debate surrounding this very issue.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:

4M2A wrote:We knew that they were discriminating / killing jews.

Not to the extent of The Holocaust. Some escaped from the country and camps and tried to tell what was going on but they were generally dismissed as it was believed that no one would do such things. What simpler times.

Its also worth remembering that lots of people were antisemitic back in the day, so trusting the messenger had problem beyond the scale of the atrocities.

I love the people that act as if German world domination would have been possible. Ahh the product of a high school education and the liberal media.

Germany would have lost, even if the US hadn't become engaged in the war.

We should all be very grateful that the US came into the war, though, because if the Russians had steamrolled Berlin and looked out over a ravaged Europe there's every chance they would have kept going, 'liberating' the whole of continental Europe. The Soviet system could have been inflicted on millions more people, and with access to that much more capital and technical expertise, it's possible it could have lasted decades longer.

Manstein wrote:Keep in mind though, a win at the Battle of Britain doesn't necessarily mean anything. Churchill might, and most likely would, have remained totally committed to fighting to the end. A win at the Battle of Britain would only transfer to the Battle of the Chanel, German aircraft v. Royal Navy. If the Navy loses, Germany MIGHT be able to pull off something like operation Sea Lion, but the history on the German's ability to raise a transport flotilla is shaky at best.

Shaky at best is putting it mildly. You just have to look at the scale of D-Day and the immense resources the US put into planning it to realise that a naval invasion of Britain was impossible. Goerring's decision to begin bombing cities was ineffective, but probably the only option Germany had for forcing Britain into agreeing to peace terms.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:Dude, Germany had a atom bomb in 1945, several months before America tested theirs.

No, they didn't.

If the Germany had faced each for individually they would won the war.

No, they wouldn't. The Soviets had the military power to defeat Nazi Germany by themselves. This can be established by the simple fact that the Soviets defeated Nazi Germany almost single-handedly (more than 80% of German casualties were on the Russian front), and the resources dedicated to fighting the British and US forces on the Western front would not have made a difference

The Germans lost when their initial operations failed to properly encircle the Russians in the first months of the war. Even if that had been achieved, it would have only given the Germans a window of some months to reach and occupy Moscow, and even that would have simply made defeat of the greater Soviet warmachine achievable, possibly.

My statement is that Germans would won if they only defeat their enemies one by one ( If they attacked Britain in 1942, defeated it and then attack USSR in 1943-44 then defeat it and finally attack USA in 1946-47 and defeated it ).

Each effort, even without the impossibly narrow deadlines, is an absolute impossbility. They lacked the naval capability to launch a naval invasion of Britain. They lacked the sheer manpower needed to occupy the Soviet Union. And they lacked both those things ten times over to consider the occupation of the US.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:Might want to check your facts there. The Germans ALMOST had an atom bomb, right up until the point where a few Norwegian commandos sunk a barge carrying all the the heavy water the Germans had made up until that point in time. Considering it took years to make that stuff, the raid effectively ended German nuclear ambitions for the time being.

They almost had heavy water. Even if they had heavy water they still would have been decades off getting the bomb.

Also, Germany have many chances to win the war but botched up on a good number. The war against the USSR could have, and in all honesty, should have been won.

I don't think you understand the scope of difference in Nazi and German military production. Germany had an excellent military culture and fine reserve of skiller officers, and the Russians most certainly did not, but ultimately WWII was a war decide by industrial production. The Germans understood that in any protracted war they would be beaten, and this is why they focused on the idea of lightning war and a rapid defeat of France and Britain (that they eventually declared such a win impossible, only to stumble upon it by mistake with the incredible success of the Ardennes manouvre).

They attempted the same against the Soviets, and achieved remarkable success against a disfunctional enemy, but the vast scale of the Soviet Union prevented the Nazis from winning a lightning war.

From there it became a war of attrition, decided by military production, and the Soviets were overwhelmingly superior. The only other measure from there was manouevre, and here the Soviets and the far greater operational range of their T-34s tipped the balance even further in their favour.

Sure, the first six months of 1941 were horrific for the Soviets, but by the end of the year they'd drawn on so many more troops that numerical parity was reached by the end of the year, and maintained throughout the rest of the war.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:The evidence in the last several years proves that on some island on the north of county, in March 1945, Germany tested atomic bomb, and it was successful test. The only thing that they didn't have is time. And that happened after British commandos sink the ship carrying heavy water.

No, the Germans did no such thing.

That is what I am saying. If they attacked USSR later with full force they would won.

No, they committed everything. The troops left in Europe would not have made a difference, and would still have been required for garrison duty if the war with Britain had been concluded. If they'd properly co-ordinated their troops for operational effectiveness they might have achieved more encirclement and removed more Soviet troops from the war... but they didn't. Even if they had, it only would have put them one step closer, and still a long way short of actual victory.

True, but one thing is for certain. We would all live under the German Reich if Hitler did won the war.

Fascist dictatorships collapse all the time, and the Nazis were less stable than most. The price would have been horrific and it's great we didn't have to pay it, but it's unlikely it would have lasted forever.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:But they didn't know about his extermination program. Even the Germans didn't know that until the end of the war.

It wasn't that well kept a secret. The Jews were being rounded up and taken away before the war. That they were being taken to certain camps in large numbers and not coming out again was known (there were debates during the war over whether railway lines to the extermination camps should be bombed or not).

If it was so poorly kept a secret in wartime conditions, it'd be impossible to keep it secret during peace.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Coa wrote:But the Germans didn't know that, same as Soviets didn't know how many people Stalin have killed...

They didn't know the number, but they knew people were taken in the middle of the night and never seen again.

There's this idea that tyranical regimes exist because people are unaware of the evil they do. It doesn't actually work like that. People are simply afraid to act against government, out of fear they'll be next.

But even worse than that, the people are often okay with the oppression done to others. The German population might not have all believed that the Jews were responsible for their problems, but enough of them did. And even if they didn't, they probably didn't have a problem with Jews being moved out of good German neighbourhoods (and would then elect to simply not think at all but where they were taken). And even if they weren't okay with that, they were unlikely to risk their lives for the sake of a Jew.

And it wasn't that much better in the rest of the world. Jews were trying to leave Germany, as Nazi oppression got worse and worse. They applied for political refuge. We knew they were being targetted, but we accepted very few Jews as political refugees.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Movac wrote:I love the people that act as if German world domination would have been possible. Ahh the product of a high school education and the liberal media.

The liberal media is responsible for a US-centric view of historic events, and a failure to understand the scale of fighting in Russia relative to that in Western Europe? That's an odd claim.

Cane wrote:Without North American logistics and combatants then it could very well sway the outcome of WW2. They had the infrastructure and location that made a huge difference in the war effort.

But the USSR was by far the biggest roadblock to Germany's potential victory.

Russia was a big issue, but they didn't develope a lot of their own technology. The suspension system used by their famous T-34's was invented by an American and they got a lot of engines and other technology from the UK as well. Then we forget the marriage of a certain UK engine and a certain US frame that created the P-51 which pretty much ended German air superiority.

As far as Canada goes, we did invade Canada during the Revolutionary War in order to free them from British rule as well. We didn't want Europe involved in our hemisphere at all, which is detailed in the Monroe Doctrine and was later enforced by Teddy Roosevelt. Had Teddy Roosevelt been secretary of the Navy during 1939 we probably would've declared war at that point in time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

How about your tone down a step and do some of your own. They weren't even popular enough in Germany to win an election outright. It would be fair to say they divided opinion in certain circles before the war, it is also right to say their aggressive foreign policy was unpopular outside Germany a few years before September 1939.

Hitler was elected to power thanks to his ability to find a scapegoat(the Jews) and a huge issue to unite the rest of the Germans(economic depression thanks to reparations after WW1). Hitler then went on to become a dictator by having top Army officials assassinated and slowly began to take back land and repeal reparations thanks to a French and British government that felt bad for the huge amount of debt they forced the country of Germany into. This allowed Hitler to take back places like the Ruhr and allowed him to build his forces.

So the French and British governments felt bad for the reparations they put onto Germany---> Appeasement of Hitler retaking land and rebuilding military---> buildup of economy, military, and the autobahn---> Invasion of Poland coordinated with Russia---> French and British finally saying "Wait a second, something's up.".

Then you have to look at all of the places that surrendered to Germany. France surrendered and so did Norway although the surrenders were not very much liked, in fact the Norwegian surrender created a word in the dictionary, the word 'Quisling' which means traitor.

sebster wrote:

Manstein wrote:Keep in mind though, a win at the Battle of Britain doesn't necessarily mean anything. Churchill might, and most likely would, have remained totally committed to fighting to the end. A win at the Battle of Britain would only transfer to the Battle of the Chanel, German aircraft v. Royal Navy. If the Navy loses, Germany MIGHT be able to pull off something like operation Sea Lion, but the history on the German's ability to raise a transport flotilla is shaky at best.

Shaky at best is putting it mildly. You just have to look at the scale of D-Day and the immense resources the US put into planning it to realise that a naval invasion of Britain was impossible. Goerring's decision to begin bombing cities was ineffective, but probably the only option Germany had for forcing Britain into agreeing to peace terms.

Only thing I advance that, when playing the "what if" history game, everything is possible. Perhaps Hitler didn't need to land in England, perhaps a loss in the air would have forced out the Conservative Churchill government and return of a peace wanting labor party negotiated a peace....perhaps, highly doubtful... but perhaps. I can't stress enough how arguing in absolutes, or near absolutes, on most of these subjects is a completely and totally laughable subject to serious historians.

sebster wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manstein wrote:Might want to check your facts there. The Germans ALMOST had an atom bomb, right up until the point where a few Norwegian commandos sunk a barge carrying all the the heavy water the Germans had made up until that point in time. Considering it took years to make that stuff, the raid effectively ended German nuclear ambitions for the time being.

They almost had heavy water. Even if they had heavy water they still would have been decades off getting the bomb.

Very true, which is why all this atom bomb foolishness should be put to rest. Its all a bunch of conjecture whipped up by History Channel shows looking to draw in High School kids, I should know, I used to be one of those kids before I really began to study history.

sebster wrote:

Also, Germany have many chances to win the war but botched up on a good number. The war against the USSR could have, and in all honesty, should have been won.

I don't think you understand the scope of difference in Nazi and German military production. Germany had an excellent military culture and fine reserve of skiller officers, and the Russians most certainly did not, but ultimately WWII was a war decide by industrial production. The Germans understood that in any protracted war they would be beaten, and this is why they focused on the idea of lightning war and a rapid defeat of France and Britain (that they eventually declared such a win impossible, only to stumble upon it by mistake with the incredible success of the Ardennes manouvre).

They attempted the same against the Soviets, and achieved remarkable success against a disfunctional enemy, but the vast scale of the Soviet Union prevented the Nazis from winning a lightning war.

From there it became a war of attrition, decided by military production, and the Soviets were overwhelmingly superior. The only other measure from there was manouevre, and here the Soviets and the far greater operational range of their T-34s tipped the balance even further in their favour.

Sure, the first six months of 1941 were horrific for the Soviets, but by the end of the year they'd drawn on so many more troops that numerical parity was reached by the end of the year, and maintained throughout the rest of the war.

Actually, I do, if I didn't I would be out on the street and wouldn't be studying this subject at the German military archives in Freiburg... right now. Regardless, and I apologize if that last bit sounded a little edgy (love ya Sebster ), you are correct to imply that Soviet industrial production had far outstripped German production by.... ehh, I want to say late 43 or early 44. I wish I had my old notes and resources on all this, I would be happy to scan them and put them up. Times like this make me wish the Reicharchives had all their junk on the internet.

To my point, if you go back and read my earlier points you will find that I make a point regarding a major failure in German strategy at the onset of Operation Barbarossa. There is significant historical evidence, stuff that is still.... slowly... being released by the Russians, between top level Soviet generals and politicos that an early victory at Stalingrad, or more likely Moscow, COULD (remember, what if history) have broken the USSR's back. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the inability of the Germans to acquire any of their three lynchpins was based on the fact that Hitler, specifically Hitler, didn't trust his soldier from birth virtual Spartan military High Command. Hitler wanted all of the prizes, and his quest for ultimate victory lead him to ultimate defeat. To reiterate, a more focused attack against Moscow or Stalingrad, could have handed the Germans a victory.

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

How about your tone down a step and do some of your own. They weren't even popular enough in Germany to win an election outright. It would be fair to say they divided opinion in certain circles before the war, it is also right to say their aggressive foreign policy was unpopular outside Germany a few years before September 1939.

How do you read tone? You were wrong then and wrong now about the popularity of the Nazi party (not in the pop star sense of the word), thus, you might want to do more reading on the pre-war period where there were Nazi support groups in different parts of the world. You seem to be giving a revisionist history that assumes everyone knew everything that we do now about the group when they didn't. There were some people that saw them for what they were but most were either favorable of them or indifferent. The internal politics of Germany doesn't represent how the average British or American citizen felt about them pre-War. people were so wanting them to turn the country around and be successful that the first response to their aggression was appeasement. We wanted them to be good guys that were out to help their people. It wasn't understood at that point what that truly meant and wouldn't know fully till we had been at war for awhile. Pretending they were generally disliked from the beginning is just not true.

Ahtman wrote:

George Spiggott wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Not even close to true. Do more research. There was a lot of sympathy for the German movement, though few truly understood the depths it would go to at the time. They were seen as trying to pull Germany back up out of economic depression and social malaise following the Treaty of Versailles.

How about your tone down a step and do some of your own. They weren't even popular enough in Germany to win an election outright. It would be fair to say they divided opinion in certain circles before the war, it is also right to say their aggressive foreign policy was unpopular outside Germany a few years before September 1939.

How do you read tone? You were wrong then and wrong now about the popularity of the Nazi party (not in the pop star sense of the word), thus, you might want to do more reading on the pre-war period where there were Nazi support groups in different parts of the world. You seem to be giving a revisionist history that assumes everyone knew everything that we do now about the group when they didn't. There were some people that saw them for what they were but most were either favorable of them or indifferent. The internal politics of Germany doesn't represent how the average British or American citizen felt about them pre-War. people were so wanting them to turn the country around and be successful that the first response to their aggression was appeasement. We wanted them to be good guys that were out to help their people. It wasn't understood at that point what that truly meant and wouldn't know fully till we had been at war for awhile. Pretending they were generally disliked from the beginning is just not true.

I actually agree with Ahtman seeing as though he is correct. We wanted them to return to their previous state in terms of economics(not really military) and Hitler seemed like a nice enough guy at the time.

As far as the British people surrendering due to lack of morale, I don't know if that would happen. The reason why we won the Revolutionary War was due to unpopular sentiment for the war, but that was a completely different case. The british people were fighting for survival against a tough enemy and I doubt that they would surrender if a single regiment of the Wehrmacht couldn't reach the shore.

halonachos wrote:Russia was a big issue, but they didn't develope a lot of their own technology. The suspension system used by their famous T-34's was invented by an American and they got a lot of engines and other technology from the UK as well. Then we forget the marriage of a certain UK engine and a certain US frame that created the P-51 which pretty much ended German air superiority.

The T-34 was in production in 1940, before the hypothetical split in which the US would no longer take part in the war as they did historically.

The Soviets didn't produce that many innovations personally, but that isn't what decided the war. Technology was there for anyone to grab, the important factor was to pick the right technology because you understood what was needed in the largely unknown combat environment of 1940. The French, for example, had incredible innovations throughout their military, but focussed almost entirely on immediate area command and control, on combining local infantry, armour, and air assets in co-ordinated assaults. They were, in a sense, fighting today's war in 1940, and got pounded because of it. At the same time the Germans were using their significant expertise in precision manufacturing to build giant technological boondoggles, that while individually impressive required far more development time than could ever possibly benefit them. A serious look into German military tech (not one of those stupid history channel things about super-terrifying German super-tech) leaves me very relieved the Germans sunk so much time into V-2s and Panthers, and not into more MG-42s or a medium tank that could actually effect a rapid breakthrough.

Meanwhile, the Russians understood the value of mobile tanks to penetrate enemy lines and mess up logistics, and so focussed on building a tank with vast operational range, supported by an advanced suspension system. So they adapted the Christie suspension that hadn't been given that much interest by other governments. Once the war was on in earnest the value of the Russian model became obvious, a fact underlined by the American adoption of a horizontal suspension system into their Shermans in 1944.

Another example is the P-51, that you noted ended German air superiority. Except all the components and technology in the P-51 were available long before then, and had even been in service with the British for some time before the US realised that their daylight bombing operations needed fighter escorts. By the time the P-51 was properly deployed across Europe it was late 1944 and the war was already over. Another example is radar - all the components were fully developed in the 1930s and available to any of the major players of the war, but it was the UK that recognised the potential of an effective command and control system to decide air combat.

What mattered was identifying the right technology, and producing it enough mass to make a difference. The Russians did this, and the Americans weren't far behind. In comparison the Germans were a shambles.

Hitler was elected to power thanks to his ability to find a scapegoat(the Jews) and a huge issue to unite the rest of the Germans(economic depression thanks to reparations after WW1). Hitler then went on to become a dictator by having top Army officials assassinated and slowly began to take back land and repeal reparations thanks to a French and British government that felt bad for the huge amount of debt they forced the country of Germany into. This allowed Hitler to take back places like the Ruhr and allowed him to build his forces.

The primary drive for Hitler's rise was actually the synthesis of working class and conservative groups in their opposition to communism.

The appeasement of the French and British was less about feeling bad over the reparations, and more about the unwillingness and inability of the major powers to wage another war like WWI.