In 1939-40, 45% of the army was at least 40 years old, and 50% of all the soldiers had just a few weeks training.^[60] Contrary to what the blitzkrieg legend suggests, the German Army was not fully motorised. Just 10% of the Army was motorised in 1940 and could muster only 120,000 vehicles, compared to the 300,000 of the French Army. The British also had an "enviable" contingent of motorised forces.^[60] Most of the German logistical tail consisted of horse-drawn vehicles.^[61]

Only 50% of the German divisions available in 1940 were combat ready,^[60] often being more poorly equipped than their equivalents in the British and French Armies, or even as well as the German Army of 1914.^[62] In the spring of 1940, the German army was semi-modern. A small number of the best-equipped and "elite divisions were offset by many second and third rate divisions".^[62]

In other words, Germany's army at the time was to a significant part a Potemkin army. If the Allies didn't know that, it's no wonder that they were afraid, especially seeing that they themselves had poorly equipped divisions, too. The situation was reversed for German military leaders, who originally only wanted to delay an all-out confrontation on the Western Front until 1942 when they could arm themselves in turn.

This (fairly well-referenced) Wikipedia article also points out that the Blitzkrieg narrative was created after the fact, that is, the invasion was more successful and victory more decisive than planned. From what I gather, the key factors were the use of communication by the (otherwise inferior) German motorised forces, and the French leadership's mistaken expectation of an attack focused on the Belgian-Dutch border (a more southerly attack cut up their lines).

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Just what could a new war possibly accomplish?
Isn't it more reasonable to junk the whole European concept and restart from scratch as painful as that may be?

the very idea of modern french and germans becoming nationalistic enough to go to war... it's too surreal and improbable to even seriously consider.

as for canning the project and starting again, it would be a good idea, though the breakup would be messy, it's by no means certain it would be worse than what's happening now, and no policy turnarounds in sight.

creating a new european union that would please everyone is obviously utopian, but at least one thing is clear... creating a common currency without an euro-equivalent of the U.S. Federal Reserve and a union-wide fiscal policy.

the probability of a second attempt being a quantum leap forward is high- the mistakes are so fresh in our minds, and the results of doing it wrong so flamingly evident.

besides, there already is a war, between the 1% and their henchmen and the rest of us.

maybe they will have to win that one to realise how stupidly suicidal a victory it was first. some juggernauts are unstoppable- seems like that's what we have to endure seeing how successfully the propaganda  of neolib brain rot has taken root.

it will crash and burn, the present setup, but without european countries taking up arms against each other, that seems utterly insane, hopefully europeans have created enough cross-border cultural awareness and appreciation for each other that we will be immune to the kind of parochial patriotism that was relatively easily whipped up in WWs 1 and 2.

wars these days are exercises in democracy building in geographical backwaters where resources are plentiful, with few divisions to protect them.

/snark

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

Just what could a new war possibly accomplish?

Which is why it isn't in my prediction range.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.