Some facts about Germany.

[Nicolas I]

...In hindsight, that was a lesser Maginot Line thread. We've had some better ones from months ago...

Like this one ? : https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/france-to-maginot-or-not-to-maginot.893432/

Or this one ?: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/maginot-line-accuracy.890339/

And this other one ?: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...l-accuracy-of-the-maginot-line-please.845218/

 

[frolix42]

IMO, it is irresponsible to just discuss the Germans, as France and Britain had very real problems as well, which, unfortunately, almost never get explored in detail, while all "credit" just goes to "blitzkrieg" and "stupid French Generals". While almost everybody knows that " Germany wasn't ready for war", how ready for war allies were in reality, not on paper, considering Great depression, and, AFAIK, lavish corruption in defence spending in France during 1920s?

You're right, German "real-life preparations" from 1936-1938 were much more extensive than those of the UK and France.

I think the reason for the above is that the German leadership had a much better idea of the inevitability of World War in 1938. The fact is that Hitler's military build-up before WW2 dwarfed the Wilhelmite preparation before WW1, and I think this goes a long way in explaining why France was defeated so thoroughly.

I dont think I was notably off-topic though, because every time people start comparing German real life preparations with some sort of hinsight 20/20 ideal, it is kind of important to remind that Germany wasn't fighting perfect fores either.

An academic USAF Academy presentation I recommend reading in it's entirety: A CLASH OF MILITARY CULTURES: GERMAN & FRENCH APPROACHES TO TECHNOLOGY BETWEEN THE WORLD WARS
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/research/cmc.pdf

In mechanized doctrine, the Germans had in most areas caught up and even surpassed their biggest rivals.

Having once led the world in half-track production, the French virtually ended development of the half-track in 1933. Starting behind the French, the Germans licensed their technology and then forged ahead with their own, innovative designs. By 1940, a wide variety of halftrack vehicles was assigned to their armored and motorized divisions.22 The Germans took the lead in other areas, as well, including armored cars, armored command vehicles, and tracked assault guns, while French development in these areas remained relatively static.

The greatest disparity in ground forces equipment between the French and the Germans was in communications equipment. The French developed relatively few radio systems in the interwar period, and devoted very little money to developing communications equipment.23 Yet, a high priority was assigned to the development of communications equipment which would be set in fixed installations along the Maginot Line.24 The Germans, on the other hand, placed a very high priority upon developing communications equipment, and produced a wide variety of effective radios for ground forces, infantry, artillery, aviation and tanks.25 As of 1940, only French heavy tanks had radios, whereas all German tanks had radios, and numerous other armored cars and vehicles, as well.

 

[brobman22]

I mean im pretty sure by 1939 it was either start the war or go bankrupt for Germany ignoring hitler probably would have started it even if that wasn't true.

 

[fredgiblet]

You're right, German "real-life preparations" from 1936-1938 were much more extensive than those of the UK and France.
I think the reason for the above is that the German leadership had a much better idea of the inevitability of World War in 1938. The fact is that Hitler's military build-up before WW2 dwarfed the Wilhelmite preparation before WW1, and I think this goes a long way in explaining why France was defeated so thoroughly.

Don't forget that the Germans also had a lot further to go. The French and British weren't necessarily powerhouses in the 30s, but they had much more equipment than the Germans did.