I am rapidly loosing any faith in Mr. Tooze's book when I see quotes likes this - I cannot help but to note that he has some sort of pre-conception, and a bit of nationalism as well. I mean, 'militarily weak neighbours' - like
France..? And what was
'extremely one sided' when the defender's losses practically matched that of the attackers (ie. ca 1600 RAF planes vs ca 1700 LW planes lost to all causes in the Battle)
It is beyond discussion of course that Germany did not have the
naval resources in 1940 that would be required to for an invasion - and such cannot be created in a couple of months. As for the air forces, its debatable, but what now begins to appear to me as the standard Tooze nonsense about some sort of 'agricultural Germany'
in the 1930s that lacks the industrial resources.. the political decision certainly was not taken to ramp up production - probably it was a mistake and would be needed to be made, not waiting until 1943 - still it seems it was sufficient to cover the losses. What amazes me that Tooze manages to ignore the political decisions and the plain industrial capacity at the time. As far as military matters, I don't think he has much weight in this subject - simply not being his field of study - as some comments about the 'heavy cruiser'
Scharnhorst reveal..