I really get the impression that the Times think that this battle is going to settle into a set of stagnant lines as happened in the last war. Thus why they leave the impression that the Weygand Line is holding. I’m sure some of this is due to the reporting by the French on the matter, but I think the NYT also has an overdeveloped sense of optimism too. In reality, by now the French have been driven back as much as 20 miles from the Somme River over at least half of the front which means there are no more natural barriers between the Germans and Paris. This battle is like you say, over.
Hanson Baldwin, their “military expert,” doesn’t really grasp all the implications of air power and mechanized movement on warfare. He, like the French, is still thinking along the lines of fixed trench warfare. He dimly sees some of the new technology, such as the impact of air power. He knows the Germans are using Stukas to blast holes ahead of penetration units. He doesn’t know that anti-aircraft fire is largely ineffective, and that only fighters interdicting in front of your lines and over enemy territory will keep the bombers off your troops’ a$$. He seems to strongly suspect that air power will trump sea power, too, but won’t go that far in his written opinion.
But when we get back to land combat, he just doesn’t get the land component of Blitzkrieg. In reality, only handful of leaders in France and Britain do. Lots of Germans understand. Lots of Soviets did, but many of them are now dead.