Who started WW2?

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

France and Germany (well atleast her power was not quite known at the time)

[syscom3]

I would suspect that only Britain was a superpower, as only it had a global reach through its maritime strengths.

Germany and France were conteintal powers.

I still ponder on how to rank Japan. Its naval power was quite high, although its army sucked big time.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

You know when you think about it that way. I agree with you as well.

[plan_D]

France, Russia and Germany were all super-powers. The U.S was recognised as an up and coming superpower. When on the European continent, you can be a superpower without a great navy. Russia had the largest air force and tank force on the planet, France had the largest army in Europe and we all know about Germany...

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can agree with that as well, and Germany did project there power globally too as well when you see the extent of fronts during WW2.

[syscom3]

That makes them Contiental powers. If you cant project your power across oceans, then your not a superpower.

I dont even think Russia was a contiental power in the 30's as Stalin had "eliminated with prejudice" most of the generals.

The US had a good navy, but its army and marines were VERY small and generally, poorly equipped.

[Henk]

A superpower is not about a navy, a large airforce can take care of a Navy very quickly, and a invasion from the air can by pass the navy. SO I will agree with Plan D. Russia had some of the most heavily armored tanks and its army was huge. Japan had a great Navy, it was just poorly used and controlled and its army did suck big time, but they could fight fiercely and was motivated to fight to the last man no matter what.

Germany we all know about. France could have done great things with their army if they just had the right people to controle it and not the idiots they had.

[plan_D]

I will take the opinion of the people of the day over yours, syscom. Germany, Great Britain, France and Russia were the superpowers and they had been for decades. The Russia air force and tank force was the largest on the planet, they had some 28,000 planes ... and you consider that nothing?

Would you consider the Napoleonic France merely a continental power? After all, the Royal Navy abolished it's navy.

[HealzDevo]

Although, one thing is that Hitler used the image of a glorious Germanic past to get people behind him in 1938 and 1939. As I have often said elsewhere, I find it very interesting to know whether originally the Germans totally realized what they were getting in Hitler. I am questioning the role of symbolism in Hitler achieving victory, talking about the use of the Teutonic Knights as a symbol, the Germanic Hoards image. Hitler did use symbolism and he did believe in the Occultant. It is said that before WW2 Hitler had sponsored many German archology digs looking for items such as the Arc of the Convenent, Noah's Ark, etc. It is unknown however, what if anything was found and where it is in these archology digs. Therefore the question is whether the symbols used in Hitler's speeches betray his original intentions and give us an insight into his thoughts at the time that those speeches were made.

[syscom3]

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

In the 30's, Germany's arm

[syscom3]

The size of an army is not an indicator on how powerfull it is. Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

The Finns held back the Soviet army for quite some time, thus I would say throughout the 30's, the Russians were a paper "giant".

The French had a good army but had no sea power to project it.

Through most of the 30's, Germany's army small so it could hardly qualify as a superpower. And it had a small navy and maritime fleet, so it was totally isolated in Europe.

Britain had the maritime fleet and navy. And when you consider that back then, armies could be raised and equiped within months, she could have had both a fleet and an army.

I maintain that Britain was the only true superpower of that decade, and France the true contiental power. Germany was a potential power, and Russia, a paper tiger,

The US didnt even factor into it.

[Henk]

The French Navy was not bad at all, it was by far better than the German Navy if you take in Numbers. The Fins had the spirit to fight and not the Russians.

Like I said, the Airforce makes or brakes you your situation during a war, a navy does not mean anything if your navy is being sunk by bomber and your army killed by enemy aircraft.

I would pour money into my airforce and Army and not so much into my Navy. If my aircraft numbers and the skill of your pilots are great you would get somewhere.

Germany and the UK were the Superpowers of the time and not the US, the US were a up and coming superpower like it was said before.

[plan_D]

Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was a 'paper tiger' but he was wrong. And you have the benefit of hindsight, and you say the same thing? The USSR may not have been so powerful right then, but it's numbers and production capacity shows that it was a superpower.

France had the army and a navy to project it's power. It had the largest army in Europe, and an air force to match most others. I'm talking 1939 here, when Germany was now a superpower. And even Poland claimed it was a superpower!

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Poland?

[Soren]

Originally Posted by syscom3

Its a combination of quality, qualntity and leadership.

= Germany.

It takes quite the amount of you mentioned above to have virtually the whole world against you and still hold your ground - heck even advance at times...