Re: [OT] French was:

Ryan Gill schrieb:
> >Of course, the Poles had fighting spirit and that
> >counts for much more than heavy tanks and static
> >fortresses.
> 
> Well, had the poles had the heavy tanks and static 
> fortresses on one of the fronts, they'd probably have 
> really made the russians and germans hurt far more than they did.

Actually, you could argue that the Maginot line fulfilled its purpose -
to defend the frontier - quite well. The Germans did not seriously
attack it, except in mopping-up actions, coming from the rear.

The problem were the areas which had not been fortified - for financial
and political reasons (most were in neutral Belgium). 

"No safer place than that which is not attacked, no easier conquest
than what is not defended" - Sun Tzu

After the takeover of the Sudetenland, the Germans got to inspect the
powerful Czech border fortifications and found they had few weapons
that could crack them (the 8.8 Flak was among them). See the third link
on page:
http://www.remotepoint.com/~jims/czech/czechlegion.html

And you can argue, as Dupuy does, that the Maginot line was overstaffed
and substantial forces could have been used to defend its flank.

Another interesting twist on the story is the thought of an allied
offensive against Germany in 1939, to support Poland, as argued by Jon
Kimche in "The unfought Battle". The allied would have had a massive
superiority against the thinned-out German forces in the West. Even
with outdated doctrine, they may well have made significant inroads.
And Allied morale hadn't yet suffered from months of phony war.

It was the poor courage of French (and British!) politicians and high
command that stopped this from happening

Greetings