Which Significant Power was the most ill-prepared for conflict at the start of WWII

Wow. My opponent has really really done his homework, and yeah, I'm sorry I missed the deadline for my Round 2. The only route I have to winning this will be to argue that France was more "ill-prepared for conflict" than Canada was. == How to weigh the debate== I had a nuance at the end of Round 1. I said that the biggest threat to the French in the 40's was the Germans, by a long shot. Even though France's armed forces may have been better than the Canadians and suitable for fighting many other countries, it was crucial that France be ready for THE German threat in particular. For example, during the Cold War, the United States may not have had a military strategy for war with Zimbabwe. That doesn't mean that the U.S. was completely unprepared; rather, it means that they weren't prepared for a low-risk scenario. But you can bet a million that they had a strategy in case of war with Russia; the U.S. spent decades getting its stuff together. This is where the Con can outweigh. France was not prepared for the most obvious risk to their security, and this is what makes France more ill-prepared than Canada. == The highlights== As stated in Round 1, the three big chips for the German war machine were their huge army, their obliterating Luftwaffe, and their unstoppable Panzer divisions. First, the French were far outnumbered by the sheer size of the German troops on active duty. In response to this, France devoted a large portion of its troops to the Maginot Line, who would stay put and largely be ignored during the entire German campaign. France simply widened its weakness with this move. Second, the German Panzer was a technological powerhouse ahead of every other country. The strength of its armor and the accuracy of its gun struck heavily proportional blows to other armies. The French, in contrast had a tank that was still designed for a WWI arena. A third of the French tanks only shot bullets, making them useless. This aided Germany in its one-sided armored land battles. Finally, the French air power was limited both by unstrategic locations, low independent sovereignty, and insufficient support structures. A poor command and communication infrastructure for the French air force meant that any bombing or interception runs were uncoordinated. A weak air ministry meant that low funding and manpower was given for the force. In fact, most of the airfields were in the East of France, meaning that they were captured early by the German army and became key points for the Luftwaffe to attack from. The French left their forces to death from above, death from the highly effective Luftwaffe would later bring London to near-rubble. Instead of stemming this strength, the French air force practically handed airports to the Germans, shooting themselves in the foot by giving them even more rein over the skies over France. == To sum up== Both sides argue that the French and Canadian armed forces had a tough time during the war. Remember, however, that the topic is for the power that was more ill-prepared, not for the power that had more blunders in fighting. Although the Canadian commanders may have made serious mistakes when in combat, these may not all have been caused by a lack of preparation. I argue that the voter should keep in mind which of the two powers had more to be prepared for; France had a quickly growing, former enemy just beyond the horizon, while Canada had problems with few countries and even less that were on the closer side of an ocean. Even if Canada was not prepared for war with a country with which it'd had few relations and with whom it was far away from, that doesn't necessarily mean that Canada was unprepared. What makes France unprepared is the fact that it left gaping weaknesses in the face of a predictable, historically observed violent power.