Search results for query: *

I said I had given you your PDF copy of Tooze in the past, but I have also in this very thread-twice now-posted a link for a digital copy of Kennedy's book. At this point you're either being deliberately obtuse or you effectively admitted here you're not actually reading posts, which explains...

Thankfully for my case, all the information presented supports my case and I helpfully provided you a direct PDF copy to Kennedy's book so that you can cite exactly what I am misrepresenting as you claim; as a reminder, it's Table 30 on Page 330. You have not cited anything because we both know...

It's why I post links so you can never make these claims.

Just like not going to war over Czechoslovakia in 1938 at Munich or over the occupation in early 1939 lead to a collapse of Anglo-French influence in Eastern Europe? There is absolutely no evidence, whatsoever, to back up this assertion. A) Completely and utterly true, as I've already shown...

Yeah, under the "war making" aegis, which factors in things like access to raw materials, labor force, etc. Table 30 on Page 330 shows manufacturing output as a tie between the Anglo-French and Germans by 1938. By 1940 the Germans have Bohemia, all of Silesia, Danzig and most of the industrially...

He actually uses both, with this being the one factoring in workers and raw materials (Warmaking potential); he also has a straight up comparison of raw productive data from 1938 too.

Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of Great Powers. It's from the 1980s, and I think more modern research has supplanted it, but it's useful for a basic primer; case in point is that it is now known in 1940 Germany had a larger machine tool (and more modern!) stock than the United States for example.

The Allies had all the choice in the matter in going to war; we have the British leadership in private even admitting the proposals put forward by the Germans were, in the words of Chamberlain himself "attractive". As for your other arguments: A) You're right, they don't have the same depth...

Yes I think for the BEF, and the Germans kept about 20-25 Divisions in the West but in 1918 they literally had like ~60 in the East even after transfers. The Germans attacked France with about as many men as they went into Russia with in 1941, if that tells you anything. As for the longer run...

On another forum, someone contextualized the Fall of France in a way I had never considered before, in which he argued it was deterministic in a pretty clear cut way. Consider it as a replay of World War I EXCEPT: There's no Eastern Front, so the WWI Ostheer is available for duty in the West...