General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Would Hitler have won World War II if he had left Russia alone? [View all]aint_no_life_nowhere
(21,925 posts)The large French army in 1939 and the 350,000 member British expeditionary force along with the Dutch and Polish divisions that fought in the battle for France were expecting a static war like World War I. The British barely brought over any air force to the continent. The French with their Maginot line were doomed to failure against a lightning war led by German tanks. In the opening of the war, German tanks were not that much better than French or British. But their tactics were far superior. Amazingly, the biggest advantage the Germans had was the radio, with which every one of their tanks was equipped. It was an extraordinary innovation no other country had. The French and British were still using tanks the way they did in world War I, mainly supporting advancing lines of infantry and with runners running from tank to tank to tell where their own tanks were situated on the battlefield. The German tanks could spearhead an advance and never lose contact with each other, would never lose contact with their command center, and would always know how to make their numbers count in concentrating on enemy positions. That simple matter of the radio would have quickly become apparent to the British and French if the Germans had first used their blitzkreig tactic against the Russians in an all-out campaign. The old and outmoded general staff of the French would have been replaced with younger generals with more a modern grasp of the battlefield (like young General DeGaulle, who for a while fought the advancing German tanks to a standstill).