Could Czechoslovakia and Poland invading from the East help? France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland were meant to deter German and Soviet ambitions.It's only with 20/20 hindsight that its all justified. France couldn't even occupy the Ruhr in the 20s without a lot of pushback.
When? They were too politically unstable in 1933-34 when they had a right wing coup attempt in Paris and the Depression had wrecked their economy and pushed them to the brink of revolution.Wary of the rise of the Nazi Party, France invades Germany to forestall the beginning of another continental-spanning war in Europe. What would the French replace the Nazis with if they succeeded? What would the consequence if France failed?
Could Czechoslovakia and Poland invading from the East help? France's alliances with Czechoslovakia and Poland were meant to deter German and Soviet ambitions.
Poland did prepare for a war and indeed proposed such a war to the French, who did not join. If they joined and took the areas East of the Oder-Neiße line, which they desired, that would have been an uproar in the international society.
When? They were too politically unstable in 1933-34 when they had a right wing coup attempt in Paris and the Depression had wrecked their economy and pushed them to the brink of revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6_February_1934_crisis
By 1936 the Germans were rearmed enough to require a full mobilization of the French military to resist them if they wanted to fight, but when they were even thinking about it investors pulled their money out of the French banking system, rendering it insolvent and leaving them unable to afford to mobilize; consequently the French left the gold standard and started liquidating their gold stocks to have funds to modernize their military and be able to afford to mobilize.
After that Germany was way to far ahead to think about attacking them.
Really the only chance for the French was early in 1933-34 but they were far too unstable themselves to even think about it, which is partly when Poland signed the 1934 non-aggression pact with Hitler.
I mean there was a reason they pulled all their troops out of German in 1930: they couldn't afford to keep the ToV going. And France had gotten terrible press in the 1920s for invading Germany and were leveraged out of it by the US and Britain using their loans held over France. In 1933-34 France had the same problem as the US and Britain were far too financially powerful to anger and they would not have tolerated France toppling Hitler and threatening to repeat the 1920s, but instead during the Depression, which would have collapsed the recovery that had started by early 1933.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_France#Interwar_years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_France#The_Depression_strikes
France was unable to topple the Nazis in 1933-34 also then because of international will to stop them. Plus they were already getting REALLY bad press as the world disarmament conference when they refused to disarm and gave Germany the cover to walk out of the conference and start rearming.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Disarmament_Conference
That's the thing, the Germans had a lot of paramilitary forces that would have popped up, but it wasn't just that they couldn't put a few units in the way and call it a day, hey assumed the Brits and US would leverage them economically and they couldn't afford that given their financial situation when investors pulled out of France on fears of war. So it wasn't so much a military consideration than an international finance one.Probably the best possibility is that the French get good intel on the size of the reoccupation of the Rhineland. OTL they thought the size of the force was several divisions (that is, they counted the SA, SS and so on as well as the line battalions) and felt they had to mobilize - for which they did not have the money.
If they had hard intel on the true size, they'd intervene and slap the Germans down for an explicit and direct Versailles violation.
The French didn't know that, they assumed the Germans would fight hard.This is just wrong. And the best proof this is wrong is Hitler himself saying that if the french had intervened, the german troops would have been forced to retreat tail between legs.
They didn't have the money or international backing to do that; just like in the 1920s when they called off the Rheinland occupation they could be leveraged by international finance and on fears of the German reoccupation French investors pulled out of the French banking system and moved their money abroad, nearly driving the country back into recession, leaving them extremely vulnerable to foreign governments leveraging them once again, which would collapse the government and given how fragile the power structure was, no one in March 1936 France wanted to risk that.Now the point is : how would Britain have reacted if France had had the vision and the guts to act unilaterally in order to have the treaty of Versailles respected ?
Right, which is why given France's desperate financial situation due to the Depression the British could leverage them if they tried to fight and the French government was not ready to risk that.The british government, at that time had a policy of apres inv nazi Germany and wanted to make many concessions to Germany. And the british government thought that France had to be ... contained and was the main threat and obstacle to its goal of engaging nazi Germany into european cooperation and a possible coalition against the USSR.
Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. They could have flattened the German military units, but they didn't know they could and so thought they'd need to mobilize - and it is on record that they'd do it if they were subsidized in their mobilization.That's the thing, the Germans had a lot of paramilitary forces that would have popped up, but it wasn't just that they couldn't put a few units in the way and call it a day, hey assumed the Brits and US would leverage them economically and they couldn't afford that given their financial situation when investors pulled out of France on fears of war. So it wasn't so much a military consideration than an international finance one.
I don't know if they could have though, the french military had suffered badly from budget cuts and was not particularly of high morale at the time. They didn't know the Germans had orders to bail if they met any resistance, but if they had the will to fight I think they could have put up a staunch fight until the rest of the world intervened.Well, yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. They could have flattened the German military units, but they didn't know they could and so thought they'd need to mobilize - and it is on record that they'd do it if they were subsidized in their mobilization.
I will say this, however. Stalin would likely be licking his chops right about now, having just finished industrial modernization and securely in power.
Poland did prepare for a war and indeed proposed such a war to the French, who did not join. If they joined and took the areas East of the Oder-Neiße line, which they desired, that would have been an uproar in the international society.
This is just wrong. And the best proof this is wrong is Hitler himself saying that if the french had intervened, the german troops would have been forced to retreat tail between legs.