Polish men had not been called up until July just two months before war broke out not giving enough time for them to be properly trained, equipped or organised. Although the Polish army’s potential strength was higher than the Germans only around 1,000,000 men were called up, leaving Germany with 516,000 more men than the Poles. The German army were superior both in numbers and weapons. The German armed forces were far more technologically advanced and the polish armed scout cars and pitiful navy where no match for Stuka dive bombers and Panzer tanks. The Polish defences were completely inferior to the modern armies of the time and any attempts to modernise its forces were based on the type of warfare not seen since WWI. The combination of these new arms made it even more difficult for Poland to put up an effective defence.
The speed at which Blitzkrieg tactics were applied shocked even the Russians who had made prior arrangements with Germany about the division of Polish territory in the Treaty of Brest Listovisch. The speedy attack meant the war was practically over before the allies arrived. Although it is true that the Polish defences were no match for modern warfare the time lost if the German attack had only been based on their technological superiority without the other elements of Blitzkrieg such as combination of arms would probably have allowed them to capture only small areas of Poland and forced them to fight the far more capable forces of the French and British Armies. Thus Blitzkrieg was the main reason for the quick capture of Poland however it would not have been such an easy and effective victory if it was not for the technological differences between the two armies, the weakness of the Polish defensive tactics and the slow reactions of the allied forces.
Although the German invasion of Norway did finally result in occupation Blitzkrieg tactics did not work as effectively as in Poland was only part of why the campaign was victorious. Firstly the attack was much slower than in Poland lasting over two months due to harsh whether conditions, difficult terrain and the allies’ attempts to defend Norway. Although the vital component of speed was lost in the attack on Norway all the other parts of Blitzkrieg remained strong and intact. The lack of cooperation between the British Army and Navy and different countries made effective defence impossible and the allies made little attempt to exploit the slow movement of the German attack. The allies where inefficient, uncooperative and badly organised which the Germans exploited to their advantage for example attacking from the air the defenceless troops at Namsos. When the attack on Norway and Denmark began the allies found that their maps and information where insufficient in detail which made planning defensive strategies difficult.
The Norwegian army was tiny compared to the German forces and still recovering from the Russo – Finish war however British and French armies where strong and certainly matched the strength of the technologically advanced German Army. The hierarchical system employed by the Germans reinforced strong leadership but unlike the British Army made sure all ranks were well informed of the importance of the effective implementation of tactics and the goals set. Battles were not won by the weight of numbers but by the superior skill, planning and organisation of the German Army. Tanks played an important part in modern warfare however Germany had 2, 700 tanks to the combined total of 3,200 British and French tanks. Nevertheless Germany still managed to secure a successful attack and in tactics and leadership skills France and Britain where far outclassed.
Although many lives were lost at sea the attack on Norway was mostly successful however it was not defeated quickly by Germany. This successful attack despite the slow movement of German forces was due to a combination of reasons but mainly because of the inefficient and uncooperative French and British Forces. This helped Hitler’s army to maintain the key ideas of Blitzkrieg despite the slow movement of attack. Thus Blitzkrieg tactics did not capture Norway quickly but certainly were important in its defeat.
The successful defeat of France was mainly because of Blitzkrieg tactics used in particular the element of speed. In early October 1939 Hitler ordered the army high command to draw up plans to seize the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Northern France. The Allied conception of German strategies played right into the enemies’ hands. The Germans knowing the effectiveness of the application of a surprise attack in Poland opted for this strategy again the invasion of France. Gamelin, the French commander in chief, ignoring the surprise tactics Germany had used to capture previous countries assumed this war would be like WWI relying on the Maginot Line to defend France against attack and moved his only reserves to link up with the Dutch.
The technologically advanced German forces made for quick defeats particularly in Holland were the number of casualties in the bombing of Rotterdam led them to capitulate hastily. However the new heavy machinery such as the Panzer tanks sometimes meant the army lost valuable time building bridges to allow the tanks to cross rivers. Rommel, commander of the Seventh Panzer Rifle Regiment knew how important it was to maintain the speed of an attack and ordered his troops to defend the river at Dinat while arrangements were being made for tanks to cross. They suffered 70% casualties however ensured the momentum and speed that was key to Blitzkrieg was preserved.
Combining arms made German forces more flexible and adaptable and added to the elements of surprise and speed. For example the use of infantry in the Ardennes forest greatly speeded up the invasion of France as it allowed tanks to swiftly make there way towards northern France cutting off the French army most of who were stationed in Belgium. The German forces included reconnaissance aircraft, artillery and motorised infantry who all worked in close cooperation which was vital if tactics were to be successfully put into operation.
At first the allies were slow to react to the German invasion although this soon turned to confusion and panic as the Germans drove deeper into French territory. France was not prepared for war due to the pre- war economic situation and the failure of successive governments to implement effective defence plans. The social and political divisions in France had led to people favouring extreme parties and becoming hostile to democracy. This turmoil had deflected attention from the rise of Hitler and hastened Frances agreement to a policy of appeasement. French high command was pessimistic about their chances against the strong German Army and many even held similar right wing views as those seen in the German Nazi Party. These weaknesses led to low moral in the French people and allowed the Germans to easily implement their tactics particularly the part of Blitzkrieg known as psychological warfare. There is noteworthy evidence of this in France were dummy tanks and parachutists were used to mislead and confuse the enemy.
France had been defeated in just over a month before the allies could organise themselves into any sort of constructive defence. The fast tactics of Blitzkrieg had been key in the successful exploitation of the lack of cooperation between the ally countries and the pitiful French defence plans. Britain and France were certainly not inferior in army size or military equipment but their refusal to work together and the pessimistic attitude of the French high command made any effective use of arms difficult. If Blitzkrieg had not have been applied then it is certain that the defeat of France, Holland, Luxemburg and Belgium would not of been a quick and decisive one and it is likely that if Germany had not had such a quick attack then Britain and France would have had time to organise themselves more effectively. It could be argued that France was defeated when it failed to set up a proper defence policy in case of invasion however if French and British forces had delayed the speed of the invasion perhaps they would have had more time to organise themselves into better defensive positions.
None of the German victories rested solely on Blitzkrieg tactics used although the quick nature of attacks except in Norway can be attributed to the element of speed which was a key idea in Blitzkrieg. The pre war weakness of the allies demonstrated in the policy of appeasement followed by Britain and France and Frances inability to set up defensive plans made the German victories all to predictable and encouraged the Germans to invade. In Poland their resistance was no match for any modern army however the speediness of the German attack meant that the allies who had promised to defend Poland arrived after a German defeat was secured. Thus Blitzkrieg was the main reason for a quick defeat in Poland. In Norway the vital element of speed was lost due to the bad weather and harsh conditions however the disorganisation of the allies meant they did not take advantage of this serious weakness in the German forces. Frances was defeated for similar reasons although there was no bad weather to slow down the rate of the Germans attack.
Although Blitzkrieg was very effective in the campaigns it was used in if it had been used for a longer amount of time it is likely the allies would have realised the nature of German tactics and provided a more effective defence slowing the German attack. If the vital element of speed had been lost would blitzkrieg still have been valuable? It would still have been successful as it was not just the Blitzkrieg tactics used but also the efficient way they were applied that led to German victories. Due to the totalitarian nature of Germany at the time and the nationalistic attitude of its society made strong leadership (an important element of Blitzkrieg) work well in the German forces which meant that all elements of Blitzkrieg could be exploited to there full potential.
Thus Blitzkrieg was a highly effective tactic employed by Germany in the campaigns against Poland and Western Europe. However its success was greatly increased by the weakness, lack of cooperation and stupidity of the allies which increased the effect of the efficient German forces in both carrying out and preparing to implement blitzkrieg tactics.
