I think one of the big things about WWII history I've learned from being on this forum is how much of an undeserved bad rep the Maginot Line gets. The assumption seems to be that the French intended the German offensive to crash against their defenses and were gobsmacked when they simply circumvented it through Belgium. In reality, it's intent had always been to channel a German offensive through Wallonia; the mistake being in how they were deployed (It's been a while since I read the early chapters of A Blunted Sickle; I think the IOTL mistake was assuming the channel ports were the target of the German advance, not severing the BEF from the French Army).
What would it take for the Maginot Line to have a better reputation? Would it literally take a 'blunted sickle' for it to be acknowledged as a legitimate aspect of the Entente war strategy? Or could there be alternative historiography that rehabilitates it? My guess is that the Maginot Line's bad reputation is because it fits into an 'Appeasement' Narrative, where Western Europe lacked the gumption to stand up to Hitler and at most wanted to protect their own skin. As sort of a corollary, is there any way that narrative could've been different?