The french air force were sitting ducks, since they didn't introduce their modern fighters fast enough and used older, inferior models instead, like the Hawk.

In the real world, if a pacifict makes a deal with a tyrant and trusts the tyrant will keep his word, then only disaster will result.

Mein Kampf was first published in 1925.  If Chamberlain, the leader of England was going to negotiate with Hitler, the leader of Germany, he should have made it his business to know the contents of Hitler's manefesto, to know what kind of person he was dealing with.  And if Chamberlain knew about Mein Kampf, and still took the actions he chose, then he was a fool.  Sincere and honest and decent, but still a fool!

But when Walter Wever died in the mid 1930's in an air crash, so did the concept of a Luftwaffe Strategic Airforce.

I would have to agree. This is the reason that Winston Churchill was ideal for the job. They called him a warmonger but he realised that you have to be as ruthless as it takes.

If Churchills decision to send the Royal Navy to sink the French fleet in 1940 wasn't ruthless then I don't know what is.

It's common to scuttle one's own ship so the enemy can't use it, anyway. Um, Germans at Scapa Flow ????

"It is impossible for us, your comrades up to now, to allow your fine ships to fall into the power of the German or Italian enemy. We are determined to fight on until the end, and if we win, as we think we shall, we shall never forget that France was our Ally, that our interests are the same as hers, and that our common enemy is Germany. Should we conquer we solemnly declare that we shall restore the greatness and territory of France. For this purpose we must make sure that the best ships of the French Navy are not used against us by the common foe. In these circumstances, His Majesty's Government have instructed me to demand that the French Fleet now at Mers el Kebir and Oran shall act in accordance with one of the following alternatives;

(a) sail with us and continue the fight until victory against the Germans and Italians.

(b) Sail with reduced crews under our control to a British port. The reduced crews would be repatriated at the earliest moment.

If either of these courses is adopted by you we will restore your ships to France at the conclusion of the war or pay full compensation if they are damaged meanwhile.

(c) Alternatively if you feel bound to stipulate that your ships should not be used against the Germans or Italians unless these break the Armistice, then sail them with us with reduced crews to some French port in the West Indies - Martinique for instance - where they can be demilitarised to our satisfaction, or perhaps be entrusted to the United States and remain safe until the end of the war, the crews being repatriated.

If you refuse these fair offers, I must with profound regret, require you to sink your ships within 6 hours.

Finally, failing the above, I have the orders from His Majesty's Government to use whatever force may be necessary to prevent your ships from falling into German or Italian hands."
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Destruction-of-the-French-Fleet-at-Mers...

In June 1940, the only fleet large enough to have a chance  of threatening the Royal Navy was that of France. France's surrender posed the possibility that this might fall into German hands, and Churchill acted ruthlessly to prevent that happening, ordering his admirals to neutralise the French ships at all costs and at great speed. One admiral, in Gibraltar, protested at these orders - he was later sacked. Another, in Alexandria, ignored them and successfully spent several days negotiating a French disarmament. In Oran, North Africa, a third, carried the orders out to the letter, and this, combined with the inflexibility of his French opposite number, led to the attack by the Royal Navy on the French base of Mers-el-Kebir on the 3rd of July 1940. Three French battleships were put out of action and over a thousand sailors died on them.

This was the decisive battle of 1940 that saved Britain from the possibility of invasion. With the Navy safe, the Battle of Britain could have been lost and invasion would probably still not have been possible. In fact it was won, and for obvious reasons became the symbol of that period. Meanwhile, Mers-el-Kebir was forgotten.
http://www.open2.net/thingsweforgot/prog_one.html

It's illegal in Germany.

I once read the swastika is illegal in Germany as well.  I thought about that in respect to flight sim games modelling Luftwaffe aircraft withswastika's on the tail.  Is there any truth to this, or was this just a silly notion?

Sad times indeed.
I beleive that it was Stalin, Woodlouse, who stated that all those above the rank of Colonel should be shot..

The inclination of the British government and of the prime minister, Winston Churchill, in particular, was simply to shoot Axis leaders out-of-hand, as outlaws, once they were caught.

Neither the Soviet nor the American government was happy with the British suggestion. Though both states shared the view that they faced an evil regime, they both favoured some formal process of law, the Soviet Union because it was felt necessary to display publicly the guilt of the accused, the United States because there existed powerful voices in Washington decrying the idea that democratic states should simply murder their enemies. http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/war_crimes_trials_01.shtml

who's gonna stop a mad man with a combover a toothbrush moustache, evil eyes and a policy called "Lebensraum"? I mean really, lets think here!

Twice. The only movie that made me cry and one of the best movies ever, at least better than any modern Hollywood interpretation of WW2.

Or that in many shows in the past a dozen of them would totally miss an upright target not even 30 feet away ...uh, sure

I'm sure that if you had had the same experiences and environments that Hitler had in his youth, you would have been just like him. 
If there would have been only a slightest difference in his youth, he wouldn't have become the man he was in the end.

Just trying to de-demonize him.

Josef Stalin (not his real name)

Lord Acton stated, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." I'd make a quick search for the exact source but I fear it may take too much time.

Your second sentence correctly refutes the "singlehandedly" part of your first. None of them would have gotten so far, so fast, without the rest.

If you've ever seen a film of Hitler giving one of his speeches then you can easily see why everyone followed him. He may have been a lousy tactician but he was a fantastic public speaker.

It's never the content, but the delivery. Same applies to almost all public speakers.

"We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the old."

Rather stuck US right in there, huh?