A Smarter Western Allience in 1939

BlondieBC

Banned

No, it doesn’t because the question immediately raised is: Why did France expect to fight a static war when for twenty years warfare every innovation had accelerated movement in warfare and the French were ignoring not only the first six months of World War One, but also the last year of the war, a year marked by rapid advances by both sides?


It wasn’t; the French army lacked rapid radio communication and the tactical and strategic reserves to call upon.

France chose a defensive strategy, due to a high level review between the war. The German population was larger than the French population, and the German birthrate was higher than French, so the French Generals concluded that they would not have the men to fight an offensive war of attrition, so they went defensive, using fortifications to make up for lack of manpower, or put another way using capital instead of labor.

The French had other strategic issues that weakened them compared to WW1.

1) Russia/Soviets would likely not be on their side and might even be on the other side.
2) French heavy handiness in the Ruhr and toward Germany had made many British public opinion swing towards sympathy for the Germans. There were high British officials condemning French militarism in Germany.
3) France and Britain were unable to decisively defeat Turkey in a multi-year war.
4) French public opinion was heavily against offensive wars due to the heavy losses in WW1.
5) There were many colonial revolts in WW1 as French troops went to Europe in WW1. Garrisoning colonies was tying up French resources.

By late 1938, France was one year from war. It was difficult to change 20 years of military doctrine in one year.

Also, WW1 was a near thing. If Either Russia or Britain is not in the war, France losses. From 1880 onward, France is weaker than Germany and any one on one war likely ends badly for France. A defensive strategy makes sense.
 
Top