4 ms·
The low countries were against it because they feared the Axis, and didn't want to be left on the other side of defensive fortifications. But in the end they fe
by bnralt 4y ago
The low countries were against it because they feared the Axis, and didn't want to be left on the other side of defensive fortifications. But in the end they fell to the Axis anyway, so I'm not sure how not continuing the long helped.
Either way it's a moot point. As I said, the Ardennes would have been an effective barrier if it was better defended. You can't leave an unguarded opening in your fence and then declare that fences are useless.
Yes, France still fell in the end. Static defenses weren't able to overcome weak leadership, but - importantly - it's mobile forces weren't able to overcome it either. In the end the mobile forces ended up being _much_ more susceptible to poor leadership than the static defenses, leading to a large chunk of the army getting disastrously cut off (and the need to get evacuated from Dunkirk).
- foobarian 4y ago> Yes, France still fell in the end For a little bit, anyway. But what does that actually mean? I often wonder what would have happened had Germany not pursued genocide, and just stopped at France. It's not like the French people would magically turn German overnight. Would the resulting entity end up like a confederacy? Same reasoning with Napoleon, too. What if they had stopped before the Russia disaster?
- bluGill 4y agoPoland has treaties with France and England: both were in process of mobilizing after the fall of Poland. I think it is inevitable that England would have at least made some attempt at war. Though I wonder if Hitler could have made things worth if he had not started the Eastern front. (I'm not clear on how that started, and Stalin wasn't to be trusted)