Chopping quotes short. This point by point response is the best way to have a dialogue, but gets really long and ugly looking very quickly.
You where talking about ... German dispositions
Not really. It depends on what you mean by "combatant." If you mean "more or less stable nation with a strong, well organized military," no, that's not going to happen. But large pockets of resistance? A military that's been smashed and disorganized, but still hanging on? Sure, that's easy enough. I'm not assuming some kind of really early POD that turns the invasion of Poland into a slugging match where Poland can last indefinitely. I'm assuming something minor; better luck, a few extra battles going Poland's way. Enough to slow the Germans down for a few extra weeks, not enough to completely shift the tide.
papa BW was in the bundswer
Nice that you have a first hand source, but I still trust higher ranking officers with access to more information than lower ranking ones.
the french army was conscripted
You're right that the French army didn't have much combat experience in 1939 (of course, neither did the Germans they would be facing for the first couple of weeks). Correct me if I'm wrong (can't find a decent source on this to double check), but both French and German armies used universal conscription at this time (for 2 years of service in either country?), that's how they built up large parts of their enlisted ranks (with professional officers). Conscription in this sense is a step up from just a conscription en masse at the beginning of the war. They're not going to be quite as well trained as someone with either combat experience or with years and years of training, that's true, but they're not at all comparable to the new 20 or so completely fresh German divisions.
The British army, from what I understand, wasn't used to universal conscription. They had just started conscription shortly before the war, but the army was more or less a professional, volunteer force.
you couldn't fit 110 divisions on the french/german border
Good point, there! Absolutely right, the mutual border was very small. I really don't think Jodl was only referring to the ENTIRE French and British armies, neither of them were so small. I'm not sure what he was referring to, in that case, but the Franco-British armies were still much larger than the couple dozen German divisions left to defend the Siegfried Line.
doesn't mean stalin would break the M-R pact...
Moving this above, because I think it's an important point, and my answer does effect a few others. Whether or not Stalin would break the M-R pact (and I'm not so sure he wouldn't if he smelled blood in the air once the western Allies start winning battles in the invasion of Germany). Hitler simply can't afford to move his entire military west. He'll be forced to move large portions, of course, but the entirety? Even if he leaves behind 15 divisions (which would be a fraction of what Stalin had in Poland in 1939, and an even smaller fraction of what Stalin
could have soon enough if he decided to be aggressive, not including large numbers of Polish partisans which will especially be vicious in a TL where Poland has performed better for one reason or another), that's a quarter of his Polish invasion force. He had the majority of the Luftwaffe in Poland at the time, and won't be able to move it over in its entirety for similar reasons. Certainly, he won't need to worry about air superiority in the short term, but completely abandoning the region is lunacy I don't think Hitler is stupid enough to do.
1 short time before the LW returns in force and contests the spear heads
I think you're overestimating the Luftwaffe's ability to function here. It wasn't designed for air superiority in quite the same way as the French and British air forces, which limits a lot of its advantages (particularly the numerical one). A strategic bomber doesn't help too much when the enemy's in your territory and a wing of tactical bombers is of limited use against a dozen enemy fighters. It
does have experience on its side, but that's only a very temporary advantage, the first Germans the French and British hit are going to be unexperienced (giving them some practice), and attacking Poland isn't nearly the same as defending from France and Britain. Given the point I made above about leaving behind portions of the Luftwaffe, and Hitler loses even more of an advantage. The AA you mention below is deadly (and certainly had great effect OTL), especially given the lack of western dive bombers. But Britain had just ordered the creation of massive numbers of new planes (not sure about France, but I'm willing to bet they did the same). Plenty of planes will be shot down... but they'll be replenished. The Messerschmitt factories were in western Bavaria, and will be a very early target of western strategic bombers (the British doctrine wasn't as bad as you think it was, they just didn't get too much of a chance to implement it due to the Battle of Britain). Junkers would be a bit safer, it was located farther away from the front lines. But some Stukas can't make an air force all on their own. You're going to have rapid Franco-British air superiority, followed by a period of small German air superiority as the luftwaffe moves west, which will summarily be wound down as the allies gain momentum.
2 short time before the stronger parts of the Heer are done in Poland
Again, a non-negligible portion will have to be left behind. And you're going to end up with them fighting a now-experienced enemy with a numerical advantage.
3 inability to maneuver through large german minefields covering the west wall
I didn't remember any major Siegfried line minefields, so I looked it up... Every reference I can find to westwall minefields refers to naval ones in the North Sea. I'm sure there were mines on the Siegfried line, of course, but not to a major extent.
4 short time before winter weather comes which might make any advances precarious and vulnerable to counter attack
This is second time you brought up the winter weather. But they still have plenty of time for early gains (and we know from history how much a short period of time can do). I'm not assuming they'll finish the war by the end of 1940.
assaults on even semi prepared defensive lines where not something to be taken lightly...
The Mannerheim Line, which was attacked entirely in winter, in one of the harshest regions in the world, and controlled by a nation whose entire military strategy was based on defending that little bit of territory, without any major obligations elsewhere? It also outperformed everyone's expectations because the Finns kept getting damn lucky and had some damn good soldiers (I'm sure you've heard the story about the one Winter War sniper who killed hundreds of Soviets, survived every attempt to kill him, and got out killing again just a week after being shot in the face, Simo Hayha). That's just the luck of war; sometimes the underdog does far better than it has any right to do.
Again, I'd just like to point out that I don't expect this to be as simple as the invasions of Poland and France. But when you have a very large force facing a much smaller one with shoddy defenses, and where even small gains by the larger force means the smaller one loses huge portions of its industry, you can't expect this war to last
nearly as long as OTL. A 1940 victory, in my opinion,
maybe 1941 if the Allied commanders make too many mistakes (granted, that's not necessarily a very big "if" in 1939!

) or if the Soviet Union decides it would be beneficial to supply Germany (a very interesting perspective, I admit, and something that could've certainly happened).