Speaking on economic - Hitler's militarisation went at high inflation cost and cutting lots from ordinary people. Democratic countries from this point of view had disadvantage: it was impossible to say "canons instead of butter"...
Yes, Germany had slave work. Soviet union too had it. However, slave workers in Germany did some sabotage which is impossible with freewilling workers.
Speaking on war in "mid 1930s" - I am afraid I had to disagree. Germany was weak, Hitler's own stuff told that at the time of czechoslovakia Wehrmacht had munition for some 1 month. At the time when Germany enetered Ruhr district, Hitler himself told that if France waas to attack 'we would have forced to retreat". Germany with its Panzer1 tanks and just born airforce was weak. It had little war fleet and any of the Allies: France, England, US - could have defeat it. However,due to various reasons this did not happen.
Britain: it had the best fleet in the world. It was possible for British fleet to seek out any enemy ship and sunk it. What are the fronts Britain was fighting at? One front - Western (Germany and occupied Europe), second front - Africa (fighting Vichy and Axis forces). On the Western front British bombers were able to bomb, they were mostly on offence. The second front ended with complete victory.
In fact, the war for Nazi was lost with:
1) occupation of France. It turned all the West against Hitler;
2) attack on Soviet Union as it was under-estimated enemy;
3) Japanese attack on Pearl harbor: US came into war.

Welcome to the forums Marder_LT. You provide an en excellent summing up of the situation in your 7 points.

In your last post I agree Germany was weak in the mid 30s (someone else on here who would strongly agree with you on this point) in fact didn't Germany need to occupy Czechoslovakia to obtain the Skoda tanks? without these perhaps the offensive in the west wouldn't have been possible so Chamberlain didn't really buy time in failing to give Czechoslovakia support.

I probably disagree that Britain had the strongest navy though. Most capital ships were of WW1 vintage and the carrier aircraft in the early 40s looked as if they came from WW1 with performance little better. They would have been mincemeat against the Japanese navy, hence I believe if Germany and Japan could have collaborated better than they did then Britain could have been brought to heel very quickly .

Marder..........Once Hitler came to power Germany became a dictatorship....Where as Britain and France where still Democracy's, now both Britain and France where physically and fianacially exhausted from WW1. Now as they had sell the idea of another war to the people of these countries and expect to get elected, some how or other they felt that this could not be done. When Chamberlain came back from Munich with the document which he claimed promised peace in our time he was greeted as a hero till it went tits up.
The USA was in the same boat as France and Britain in selling a war to a People that did not want one, lets face there was huge lobby in the US not to help Britain in any way in case they dragged into a war. this is the difference between a Democracy and a dictatorship where you are elected by the people to carry out their will.


The Royal Navy........now it had NO capital ships built since the end of WW1 and although still the largest Navy in the world was hard pushed to try and contain Germany's modern pocket Battleships, fight a U boat war in the Atlantic and fight another modern navy, in the shape of the Italians, now there were several large battles in the Med and although we got the better of them this fleet still poised a threat and could not be ignored.
The Royal Air Force........Now you state that they were able to bomb and were on the offencive, well yes they were with little or no affect. The Blenheim's were shot out of the sky, the Fairy Battles where shot down by the Squadrons as they were so slow and poorly armed. The RAF where still using the Bombay and Whitley bombers to bomb Germany until the Wellington came into service in the late 1940 and even that was a two engine bomber and it was not until 1941 did the first of the four engine bombers start to be delivered and you must remember that 60% of all the air crews were killed in action.

The British and Commonwealth Army which had lost most of it's obsolete equipment at Dunkirk was fighting a battle against huge odds in the Western desert. The fact that they destroyed a huge Italian Army out there which out numbered them about ten to one never gets much credit.

Now you say that Hitler did not have any or much information on the Russian, now as the Germans had a huge military Mission in Russia and had been working with them on several Military projects are you suggesting that they did not know the state of the Russian forces

Originally Posted by perseus

In your last post I agree Germany was weak in the mid 30s (someone else on here who would strongly agree with you on this point) in fact didn't Germany need to occupy Czechoslovakia to obtain the Skoda tanks? without these perhaps the offensive in the west wouldn't have been possible so Chamberlain didn't really buy time in failing to give Czechoslovakia support.

Germany was precariously weak in the late 1930s and for the Polish campaign, which was not really a Blitzkrieg campaign in the proper sense. It amazed some German generals that Britain and France did not attack when the Wehrmacht was in Poland, Operation Saar aside. With a proper offensive the Allies could have marched right into Germany - there was only a light screening of 2nd echelon troops to oppose them.

In France itself, the Wehrmacht was largely equipped with Panzer Mk 1s and IIs, which were training machines and not designed for actual conflict. The Skoda tanks did indeed help out the Germans a great deal in France, until more Panzer IIIs and IVs could be built. On paper at least, the only area that the Germans had superiority in equipment quality and numbers was in the air. The Germans pressed 2 Skoda tank types into service and designated them the Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t).

The offensive in the West still would have been possible, as it was the tactics and the element of surprise that won the Battle of France, not equipment quality.

I think all that fuel they used up in the holocaust had a hand too.

We were in just as bad shape as Germany, and there was not the heart in it for another fight with Germany at this stage. German troops always thought that they did not lose WW1 but had been sold sown the river by their politicians, so where more up to fight than any one else, as they had wrongs to right as they saw it

I think the primary reason Germany Lost was due to the same reason that the Kaiser, Napoleon, Alexander the Great, and even eventually the Roman Empire (although it took considerable longer).

Simply that their megomanic leader whose misplaced feeling of invincibilty caused them to overextend themselves. The fronts became too far from home, there were neither enough men nor supplies to cover the distance and that they had made too many enemies and not enough reliable Allies.

^^^ I think that mmarsh has it in a nutshell ^^^

Originally Posted by Doppleganger

The thing is Churchill didn't win though, Stalin did.

No no Dop, you mustn't misquote me - I said that I would be Churchill trying to discourage him from going to war -- again!

But please always remember that in England we are still the champions of the whole world. We hold so many world championship titles.

We won all our wars, remember, even the American war of Independence ! (we let 'em have that one because it was a long way to go, and we liked them really.)

Now we are just a little bit tired.

Singing - Give me some men who are stout-hearted men
Who will fight for the right they adore.
Start me with ten who are stouthearted men
And I'll soon give you ten thousand more!

Are you singing there? Well, that's two of us then.


SERIOUSLY THOUGH - I do agree with Le and MM.

It's a no brainer really.