First off sport, I quoted nothing. You continue to spell Britain incorrectly, but attempt to correct others in different areas, there's a double standard.
As for "Why they were allowed to build?" Simple, they had a genius amongst them. His name was Erhard Milch. I suggest you read "The Rise and Fall of the Luftwaffe" written by him. Prior to WWII he was the Head of Lufthansa. He was a master at all things logistical. The Germans played shell game with their built weapons and the allies were not able to keep tabs on everything. Before you know it, they've amassed a lot of weaponry from Uboats, BB's, airplanes, tanks and small arms.
They built all of this stuff while most of the country was near poverty. Hitler chose the Military over the civilians, because of illusions of grandeur. As for your continued "What If's?", they are unrealistic and have no bearing as Germany has paid off the debt. It is for naught.
I'm not even going to start with personal attacks like my spelling. I've covered that already this thread. They are just childish. The quote was because of your citing your Book. I assumed it was taken from such, if not, do these small insignificant nuances really destroy an argument?
I asked the question, because I needed clarification in my mind. Sometimes just having someone else word it helps. I learned some new things from it, I confirmed some old. From you though, I have received answers that do with the future of where my questions lay. This time you point to chiefly one man yet that also is false. In order for him to have been in a position to do anything he did, other events would have been required; from failure of intelligence, to the want of blissful self induced ignorance or just the folly of ignoring history's 'what ifs.' Just because a debt was repaid, doesn't mean the event goes away from history. You might find that in thae level 300 book too.
Each event presents with it lessons, but in order to learn some of these, you must ask questions of the event. Hypothetical 'What ifs' are how we sometimes obtain these answers. We rely on the hypothetical each and every day. Our greatest inventors played the 'what if' game. The Manhattan project was 100% theory until it was at an end. It was a HUGE 'what if.' 'What ifs' do not harm, they elicit discussion and intellectual banter. But in order to make the discussion of any value, you must be open to thinking about the other side. I fully understand what we were taught, but just because it is what we currently believe, doesn't necessarily make it right. Who grew up with 8 planets here? No one, we grew up with 9. Were we wrong or did the information we had, and the way we define our world change? I am opening the possibility there are 8 planets instead of 9. Maybe I am wrong... but maybe you are as well.
As for SEseph's question about why was Germany allowed to rebuild etc. I think it comes down to the rest of the world not having the stomach to do anything about it.
Thanks Guppy, well put
In WWI, everyone had something to gain from the war or were drug in by treaty. Britain sided with the easiest of the choices because even a neutral nation sometimes is making a choice in her silence.
This is the reason Hitler was able to do what he did. This time it didn't benefit the high and mighty nations to enforce a treaty and could hurt them should they step up. Maybe we should have played a 'What If' game then...
Anyway, back to the initial reason I said anything in this forum. Britain started WWI by her inaction and a little cowardice by her leadership. The nations didn't have the sense of duty to enforce something they gained little to nothing from should they enforce it, which opened the way for Hitler to step right in. My view of events gives the same wars, the same people, the same events. What my view gives that the commonly accepted view does not is a new way of interpreting such events.
