|
Well the Anglo-French are often blaimed for that lack of action during the Phoney War, you even see some of this here in this thread, but I think the whole thing is more complex.
First the allies needed time to build up their strength as well, certainly the British could only have benefitted from a combat pause in the West. The french might arguably have started sooner, but that would have meant a winter offensive and even the french forces were in part using the time to strengthen and modernize.
Second, once the spring offensive started in the West, you might arguably say that the Allies were AGGRESSIVE to the point of thrusting their spearhead North towards Holland and Belgium. These forces contained the cream of Anglo-French units.
Rapid early movement (or falling for the german trick) by the western allies was as much a culprit of defeat as were the german mobile spearhead tactics.
Allied initiative was quickly lost.
Of course the allies could be blaimed for not starting their own spring offensive, yet could we expect such aggressive behavior from liberal democracies? We should not underestimate the influence of WW1, or more accurately, the horror of war. Personally I do not think that those who tried to maintain peace in those days deserve the bad reputation that they have today - up to Prime Minister Chamberlin!
Just think in terms of stopping the Apocalypse...
I'd try, wouldn't you (without 20-20 hindsight).
__________________
Ruy Horta
12 O'Clock High!
And now I see with eye serene
The very pulse of the machine;
A being breathing thoughtful breath,
A traveller between life and death;
|