Menu

An Account for the Defeat of the AngloFrench Allies in 1940

0 Comment

This analysis shows that the Germans had a better strategy, battle tactics, good communication, home support, support from businesses, better intelligence and drive to conquer (Jackson, 2004). On the other hand, the allies had little intelligence about the enemy, poor economies, we’re reliant on poorly thought out defences, could not establish communications or supply lines and eventually had to fold over as German tanks drove from country to country (Horne, 1969). To fully understand these reasons, it would be best to analyse them on an individual basis.Blitzkrieg is the popular name given to the operational military system under which quick air bombing is followed by a charge of mobile ground forces at the weakest point in the enemy defence lines (Jackson, 2004). The basic element of this tactic of warfare is the speed of the attack and the surprise it generates for the enemy who is basically caught unaware (Horne, 1969). There is some doubt if the Germans had developed these tactics on their own since Foreign Affairs (1941) describes these tactics as having a German origin while Ellis (1990) suggests that the doctrine could have been developed by other tacticians and copied by the Germans to apply to mechanised warfare.Nonetheless, it was effectively employed as a weapon of war and it allowed quick military gains to be made by the Germany forces. Time magazine (1939) was the first popular news source to report on these tactics when a writer described the fall of Poland by saying that: The battlefront got lost and with it the illusion that there had ever been a battlefront. For this was no war of occupation, but a war of quick penetration and obliteration—Blitzkrieg, lightning war. Swift columns of tanks and armoured trucks had plunged through Poland while bombs raining from the sky heralded their coming.