What scenario can bring peace after Poland falls but before France falls?

ASB that Belgium and the Netherlands would participate. In 1939 a French offensive would be entirely on it's own and slaughtered by the time it could get going given German air superiority and the increasing reinforcements that would come in after Poland was wrapped up with Soviet entry into that campaign. The British weren't combat ready in 1939, they had to displace their infrastructure to France and that took months. This wasn't 1914 in terms of what it took to transfer an army to the continent.
Fair one on Belgium and Netherlands (and that's on them) OTL but a POD being that they did?

OTL France 'Dipped its toe into the Pool' when it invaded Germany - but what would have been the impact of France 'Bombing into the Deep end' over running the Ruhr and realizing the German leaderships greatest fears?
 

Deleted member 1487

Saarbrücken. The main city of the Saarland. Being "stuck on the Saar river", as you yourself propose, means the French have taken at least half of that city (and are shelling the other half). It's certainly not a key industrial center, but it's a very strong symbol.
Which is why it would be heavily defended and the French in the OTL offensive didn't attack it directly. They attacked territory east and west of it, but not directly at it and were already stalling before getting anywhere close. Plus the French wouldn't want to start shelling the city, they were terrified of Germany responding with city bombing, which is why they forbid their air force to even bomb German territory. Not only that, but the city is in a valley and the highest ground in the area is deeper into German territory, which gave them observation over the entire valley the French would have to advance across, as it was the French army closest to the city were being heavily delayed by a mined forest with limited defenders and the city itself was backed by double layers of the Siegfried Line. While that line was certainly not the Maginot Line it wasn't inconsequential.

You make many very good points, but you seem not to remember that in OTL Hitler really really wanted to attack France in October. And then again in November, as I remembered. But now that you made me look this up, he came back for a third time in January (!).
Each time, the generals managed, with great difficulty, to dissuade him. And over this time, the generals moved once again their coup plot from the back burner to the front burner. They were pretty convinced that if they were forced to make that attack, it would end at least in heavy losses for no gain, or maybe worse.
The generals' coup did not materialize, however, always for the same reason as ever: Germany had not suffered a setback and Hitler's popularity was high.
And Hitler was talked to down every time due to the munition situation. It was fine to fight a limited battle on the frontier, but not invade France in total as Hitler demanded. Having to fight a series of counterattacks on the frontier in winter is hardly going to break anyone, but it will preclude Hitler getting as ridiculous as IOTL by demanding the decisive campaign in Winter 1939-40.
 
Which is why it would be heavily defended and the French in the OTL offensive didn't attack it directly. They attacked territory east and west of it, but not directly at it and were already stalling before getting anywhere close.

Sure! IN OTL. This is an ATL.

Plus the French wouldn't want to start shelling the city, they were terrified of Germany responding with city bombing, which is why they forbid their air force to even bomb German territory.

The city per se is one thing. If there are German troops in the built-up area on the other side of the river, well...

I cut a good point I take.

Having to fight a series of counterattacks on the frontier in winter is hardly going to break anyone,...

Definitely. In the TL, however, these counterattacks fail, and this sets off the subsequent chain of events. As already described.
 

Deleted member 1487

Sure! IN OTL. This is an ATL.
So you're proposing the entire French offensive is different from the get-go? In what ways? We need to know to see what would be practical, the French were still mobilizing and unable to go all out.

The city per se is one thing. If there are German troops in the built-up area on the other side of the river, well...
Both sides of the river.

I cut a good point I take.
Huh?

Definitely. In the TL, however, these counterattacks fail, and this sets off the subsequent chain of events. As already described.
Heck of an assumption though.
 
There’s no reason to believe that anyone whom could plausibly replace Gamelin would have made a different decision. France’s decisions to accept the militarization of the Rhineland, abandon Czechoslovakia, and build the Maginot Line demonstrate that the entire political and military establishment of France rejected the idea of seizing the initiative, and instead wanted to wait for the Germans to come to them.

Yes thats correct in the short term, but in any case to little is possible with Gamelin & his influence. Whatever good Gamelin was in 1934 or 1936 he was past his expiration date in 1939. Maybe replacing him in 37 or 38 would allow some better decisions for the army & air force to be made. Not every senior marshal or the next tier generals were micromanaging user detail oriented hyper methodical pendants. This goes beyond just whoever fills Gamelins office. Much of the weakness in the French army or air force originated in the defense ministry and ultimately the Chamber of Deputies.
 
Top