Comments by "James the Other One" (@jamestheotherone742) on ""Blitzkrieg" is the wrong term (and more) | TIK Q&A 24" video.

Blitzkrieg rolls off the English tongue easier. Poland was the first, imperfect try. France was the technique perfected. Russia as biting off more than any strategy could handle.
3
@8:00 Hitler was preparing for a perpetual war. And he wanted it ASAP. So he and the generals started it with the "army they had" thus lots of infantry, horses, and trains. And their tail never caught up. Also remember "those darn kinder" that were into all those new fangled aeroplanes and tanks and stuff, were still in the minority in the late thirties. You can see this in the French campaign, where the old infantry generals were thinking in the old time frames while Guderan and co. were racing forward with the armor.
2
@15:00 German-USSR trade was already strong, they didn't need a direct overland connection. Of course that was trailing off as the Nazis and Soviet socialism deviated further and further from each other. Stalin wouldn't have minded at all if Hitler attacked the French. Germany had just as much of a causi-belli cases against France as Poland. Versalles, Sudetenland, etc. The German army wouldn't have been ready for France in Sept. 1940. Not enough tanks (Pz IIIs and 38Ts) and the mistakes made and learned from in Poland, would (might?) have been exploited by the French, English, and Belgians to blunt the invasion.
1