Everyone in Europe was ramping up in the 30s - it's an utter myth that factories only started really getting going in '39. Germany could build at scale just fi

Everyone in Europe was ramping up in the 30s - it's an utter myth that factories only started really getting going in '39. Germany could build at scale just fine - however it was also facing three resource powerhouses, and had no allies that could compensate. Germany couldn't build at a scale to compete with the Allies, but it could "build at scale". > by 1943-44, they could have rolled through Germany 3 times over and had hardware to spare. ... and yet they waited until halfway through '45? :) Edit: I've hit my 'make comment' limit, but in counterpoint to adventured: The parent said that "by 1943", the Allies had enough to "roll through" Germany 3 times over. Never mind that the Allies couldn't organise an effective coastal invasion for another year and a half, nor that the war in the east had only just reached tipping point. My point was that if it was so easy ("roll through", remember?), then why wasn't it done in 1943? > Why not sit back and bomb the hell out of Germany prior to rolling over them? You have the cart before the horse - "bombing the hell out of them" was a major part of being able to defeat a tough, tenacious foe. I remember one WWII veteran complaining about the film Saving Private Ryan, in that while the opening scene was realistic, the rest of the film had Germans acting like idiots, running into machine-gun fire and across open areas for no reason. He hated it because not only did it not do the Germans justice for being excellent soldiers, it also didn't do the Americans justice for being able to take out this difficlt foe. Painting the taking of Nazi-occupied Europe as a form of cakewalk doesn't do either side justice.