What if there was no Maginot Line?

[Hammer Birchgrove]

While I've read several texts discussing the pros and cons of the Maginot Line (and similar defensive lines of fortifications), the justification and reasoning behind its construction and the alternatives (more tanks and aircrafts, small elite army, etc), I haven't yet read speculations on what would have happened if it had not been built. BTW, if Reynaud and de Gaulle could get rid of the Maginot Line, they would probably have been able to get rid of the Char B1 heavy tank, and have more Char D2 and Somua 35/40 medium tanks, and perhaps more mechanized infantry divisions.

Would Nazi Germany still build the West Wall (the 2nd "Siegfried Line"), as a defence against France and as a propaganda tool? If so, would Hitler still order the invasion of Poland before the invasion of the Lower Countries and France? Then, I assume, France would be better at helping Poland with a more efficient, forceful Saar Offensive...

Or would Hitler release the full wrath of the Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS on France at once, now that France's strategy would one of "attack is the best form of defence"? If so, would France be better at defending itself then in OTL?

What would be more likely?

 

[Michel Van]

On Bunkers and defence lines of Bunkers, Hitler was obsessed of Bunker Fortresses
Hitler had anyway give the Oder to Organisation Todt to build the Atlantic Wall

The Blitzkrieg manover show that defence lines like the Maginot Line or Belgium Bunker are not effective

The Belgium Bunkers were not bad, if you except they install short range artillery for budget reason, the Telephone lines were easy to find.
and Crews had Dutchphone Flemish soldiers and francophone Wallon Officer, Wat give hell of language barrier
and to make things worst the most most important fortress Fort d'Ében-Émael was used as penal institution by Belgium Army !
there brake total chaos lose during invasion of Wehrmacht
while Fort d'Aubin-Neufchâteau, Fort d'Battice and Fort d'Tancrémont look helplessness wat happen there
because there short range artillery and cut Telephone lines, until the Wehrmacht came over them
General Todt had to visit those bunkers and study them for the Atlantic Wall Bunkers on Hitlers orders

IMHO
if Belgium's had not put the money in those Bunkers, but build massive Tank and Fighter aircraft and stay in alliance with Britain and France
had make WW2 very intresting...

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The short form of history that most people subscribe to is nonsense. The Maginot Line was a great success and without it the Battle for France would have been a greater disaster for the Allies. First one must note that none of the main Maginot defences were captured by the Germans they were still in play at French surrender. Also the Maginot alpine defences totally stopped the Italian invasion of France.

Without Maginot the French and British Army would have been exposed to more frontage up against the far more mobile German army. The Germans showed they could disrupt and surround the Allied 1940 armies in the narrow front of Belgium. In the much wider front of Alsace-Lorraine the Germans would have been able to encircle and defeat the Allies even more comprehensively. Without the Channel to escape to its likely the Germans could have surrounded and captured the BEF to a man.

The real question is not the Maginot Line but Allied tactics and operational capability. To make this effective would have required the embracing of the experimental mechanised force and a tactical air force as in the efforts of Maj.Gen. Fuller (in the UK) and de Gaulle (in France). Bearing in mind this before the first mass armoured armies (as seen later in WWII) had a lot more to do with the nature (radios) and tempo of command rather than the number of tanks and trucks available to the Army. The post trench warfare tactical revolution was assessed and understood in all of the main armies between the wars but only the Germans and Soviets tried to implement it before the war.

Without a major change in the way the French Army and Air Force planned to fight the only solution for them in 1940 is to have built more of the Maginot Line.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Thanks guys - I wanted to respond earlier but surgery (of a certain type of hernia) and university got in the way, especially since I wanted to comment further. I see now that previous "facts" and opinions in history books, documentaries etc have been one-sided. IMO it was a pity for France to not involve itself in the Spanish Civil War (on the Republican side); maybe the "conservative" French military would have gotten a better understanding of manoeuvre warfare then.

Back to the Maginot line, could someone explain this to me:

"The Belgian's didn't want to rely on the French as there were disagreements after World War I and then when France wouldn't extend the Maginot Line to the coast the Belgian's felt that France only saw Belgium as the next battleground against Germany."

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/belgium/default.asp

I thought Belgium would have issues with France building fortresses next to the Franco-Belgian border; which IIRC France actually did though not so many because the land couldn't support too heavy buildings. ???

 

[bobbymike]

AG is 100% correct. The Allies were severely outclassed on the western front and giving them even more territory to defend with the wrong strategy and operational tactics would not have prevented what happened and would have given the Germans (as AG wrote) more territory to encircle the allies.

 

[Michel Van]

Back to the Maginot line, could someone explain this to me:

"The Belgian's didn't want to rely on the French as there were disagreements after World War I and then when France wouldn't extend the Maginot Line to the coast the Belgian's felt that France only saw Belgium as the next battleground against Germany."

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/belgium/default.asp

I thought Belgium would have issues with France building fortresses next to the Franco-Belgian border; which IIRC France actually did though not so many because the land couldn't support too heavy buildings. ???

that one of reason why Belgium build Bunker Fortresses from North (Fort d'Ében-Émael ) down to French border, connect to Maginot line
but even they not finish the line, because they used 25% of the national budget for several years !
another reason was that King Leopold III had the insane naively belief that Belgium Neutrality would protect the kingdom
and cancelled defence treaties with England and France, his father King Albert I. had signed

i ask my self "Wat happen if King Albert I. not die during climbing" ?
today Belgium would be bigger toward east and possibly is a nuclear Power

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Back to the Maginot line, could someone explain this to me:

"The Belgian's didn't want to rely on the French as there were disagreements after World War I and then when France wouldn't extend the Maginot Line to the coast the Belgian's felt that France only saw Belgium as the next battleground against Germany."

http://www.wwiivehicles.com/belgium/default.asp

I thought Belgium would have issues with France building fortresses next to the Franco-Belgian border; which IIRC France actually did though not so many because the land couldn't support too heavy buildings. ???

that one of reason why Belgium build Bunker Fortresses from North (Fort d'Ében-Émael ) down to French border, connect to Maginot line
but even they not finish the line, because they used 25% of the national budget for several years !
another reason was that King Leopold III had the insane naively belief that Belgium Neutrality would protect the kingdom
and cancelled defence treaties with England and France, his father King Albert I. had signed

In Leopold III's defence, France had missed a golden opportunity to defend the peace and humiliate Hitler when Germany re-militarized the Rhineland. But I agree, it was naive and foolish to think Belgium could remain neutral.

i ask my self "Wat happen if King Albert I. not die during climbing" ?
today Belgium would be bigger toward east and possibly is a nuclear Power

Also, no one would accuse (Belgian adventure strip creator) Hergé of being a collaborator.

Albert I. seems like one of the guys I'd like to meet in heaven: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_I_of_Belgium

 

[Michel Van]

Also, no one would accuse (Belgian adventure strip creator) Hergé of being a collaborator.

for those who not understand
Hergè is comic artis who made famous Tintin
In private life he was force anti communist Catholic
and friendly with Léon Degrelle the founder of Rexism, the francophone Belgium version of Fascism
Hergè work for Student magazine "XX Siècle", who was run by group of Student under Degrelle befor REX
in high of there Power 1936 REX had garnered over 30 per cent of the popular vote in francophone Wallonia
Leopold III show public sympathy for Rexism, much to shock of Belgium politician.
in same time the Dutchphone Flemish Fascist Speratist had the Vlaamsch Nationaal Verbond, or VNV.

in WW2 the REX and VNV end up as cannon fodder for Waffen-SS
after the war Léon Degrelle escape to Spain, a place Herge went to vacation
after the death of Herge the first question about this past rise
but the Hergé Foundation crust any attempts by lawer...

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

The thing is: when Wehrmacht was about to conquer Belgium, Hergé (or Georges Remi) was escaping to France with lots of other Belgians. Unfortunately, King Leopold III thought it would be best for Belgium if Belgians would try to be friendly with the Germans and work as "business as usual". Hergé, being a patriot and royalist, heard this and went back to Belgium to work for a collaborationist news paper as comics creators and - IIRC - editor for the children's page. (Hergé would later - after WWII - claim that he didn't see this as any different than from working as a tram driver.)

Had Leopold III - or, indeed, Albert I - escaped to France and later UK to lead the Belgian government in exile, Hergé would probably have followed his king and maybe worked for British war propaganda, making Tintin a soldier or MI6 agent (the latter part is of course pure speculation).

 

[OM]

...Then George Formby wouldn't have produced this little gem:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z1LbDTMLDKk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSSBQWbF7R8&feature=related

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

Fun song in itself; but like We're Gonna Hang Out Our Washing On The Siegfried Line, feels sad in hindsight.

 

[Firefly 2]

The thing is: when Wehrmacht was about to conquer Belgium, Hergé (or Georges Remi) was escaping to France with lots of other Belgians. Unfortunately, King Leopold III thought it would be best for Belgium if Belgians would try to be friendly with the Germans and work as "business as usual". Hergé, being a patriot and royalist, heard this and went back to Belgium to work for a collaborationist news paper as comics creators and - IIRC - editor for the children's page. (Hergé would later - after WWII - claim that he didn't see this as any different than from working as a tram driver.)

Had Leopold III - or, indeed, Albert I - escaped to France and later UK to lead the Belgian government in exile, Hergé would probably have followed his king and maybe worked for British war propaganda, making Tintin a soldier or MI6 agent (the latter part is of course pure speculation).

Ah, the post war Belgian amnesty debate... You'd be surprised how many of today's political problems in Belgium still stem from that era... It was a traumatic time, I'm told. My own family was torn apart when my great-grandfather was betrayed by his collaborating nephew and then executed by the Nazis. There's still no contact with that side of the family to this day!

On topic: Alternate historians often forget that eliminating one part of an equation doesn't actually mean that another action should have been taken. If France hadn't built the Maginot line ... Yes well, what of it. There is no way of telling if those available funds would then have been used in a way that would have altered history. Maybe those funds wouldn't have been allocated to defence at all.
German rearmament under the Nazi rule took the world by surprise. In terms of history there is very little time between the installment of the Nazi leadership as heads of state and the beginning of hostilities in '39. This rearmament program was done by in-debting Germany to a very significant degree. The crash of '29 and the economic nightmare that followed made most countries unwilling to spend gigantic sums on the modernisation of their armed forces.
As so often, history is the product of multiple actions and in-actions, removing one part of the equation might not have a huge influence on the net endresult.

 

[Hammer Birchgrove]

The thing is: when Wehrmacht was about to conquer Belgium, Hergé (or Georges Remi) was escaping to France with lots of other Belgians. Unfortunately, King Leopold III thought it would be best for Belgium if Belgians would try to be friendly with the Germans and work as "business as usual". Hergé, being a patriot and royalist, heard this and went back to Belgium to work for a collaborationist news paper as comics creators and - IIRC - editor for the children's page. (Hergé would later - after WWII - claim that he didn't see this as any different than from working as a tram driver.)

Had Leopold III - or, indeed, Albert I - escaped to France and later UK to lead the Belgian government in exile, Hergé would probably have followed his king and maybe worked for British war propaganda, making Tintin a soldier or MI6 agent (the latter part is of course pure speculation).

Ah, the post war Belgian amnesty debate... You'd be surprised how many of today's political problems in Belgium still stem from that era... It was a traumatic time, I'm told. My own family was torn apart when my great-grandfather was betrayed by his collaborating nephew and then executed by the Nazis. There's still no contact with that side of the family to this day!

That's very sad to hear.

On topic: Alternate historians often forget that eliminating one part of an equation doesn't actually mean that another action should have been taken. If France hadn't built the Maginot line ... Yes well, what of it. There is no way of telling if those available funds would then have been used in a way that would have altered history. Maybe those funds wouldn't have been allocated to defence at all.
German rearmament under the Nazi rule took the world by surprise. In terms of history there is very little time between the installment of the Nazi leadership as heads of state and the beginning of hostilities in '39. This rearmament program was done by in-debting Germany to a very significant degree. The crash of '29 and the economic nightmare that followed made most countries unwilling to spend gigantic sums on the modernisation of their armed forces.
As so often, history is the product of multiple actions and in-actions, removing one part of the equation might not have a huge influence on the net endresult.

Very good points. I've been told that the German economy would have crashed in 1941 if Germany had not invaded other countries (and "paid" its debts by taking other countries resources).

In all fairness, the French socialists/radicals who won the election in 1936 and invested on welfare, did also start the re-armament program (too late, but still). As for the previous right-wing government, I took for granted that Paul Reynaud would be in the government if the Maginot Line was nixed in favour for tanks and aircrafts. If the particular turning-point is having or not having a certain person in power, then it can be assumed a lot of decisions would be different, IMHO. :-\

 

[Firefly 2]

The thing is: when Wehrmacht was about to conquer Belgium, Hergé (or Georges Remi) was escaping to France with lots of other Belgians. Unfortunately, King Leopold III thought it would be best for Belgium if Belgians would try to be friendly with the Germans and work as "business as usual". Hergé, being a patriot and royalist, heard this and went back to Belgium to work for a collaborationist news paper as comics creators and - IIRC - editor for the children's page. (Hergé would later - after WWII - claim that he didn't see this as any different than from working as a tram driver.)

Had Leopold III - or, indeed, Albert I - escaped to France and later UK to lead the Belgian government in exile, Hergé would probably have followed his king and maybe worked for British war propaganda, making Tintin a soldier or MI6 agent (the latter part is of course pure speculation).

Ah, the post war Belgian amnesty debate... You'd be surprised how many of today's political problems in Belgium still stem from that era... It was a traumatic time, I'm told. My own family was torn apart when my great-grandfather was betrayed by his collaborating nephew and then executed by the Nazis. There's still no contact with that side of the family to this day!

That's very sad to hear.

On topic: Alternate historians often forget that eliminating one part of an equation doesn't actually mean that another action should have been taken. If France hadn't built the Maginot line ... Yes well, what of it. There is no way of telling if those available funds would then have been used in a way that would have altered history. Maybe those funds wouldn't have been allocated to defence at all.
German rearmament under the Nazi rule took the world by surprise. In terms of history there is very little time between the installment of the Nazi leadership as heads of state and the beginning of hostilities in '39. This rearmament program was done by in-debting Germany to a very significant degree. The crash of '29 and the economic nightmare that followed made most countries unwilling to spend gigantic sums on the modernisation of their armed forces.
As so often, history is the product of multiple actions and in-actions, removing one part of the equation might not have a huge influence on the net endresult.

Very good points. I've been told that the German economy would have crashed in 1941 if Germany had not invaded other countries (and "paid" its debts by taking other countries resources).

In all fairness, the French socialists/radicals who won the election in 1936 and invested on welfare, did also start the rearmament program (too late, but still). As for the previous right-wing government, I took for granted that Paul Reynaud would be in the government if the Maginot Line was nixed in favour for tanks and aircrafts. If the particular turning-point is having or not having a certain person in power, then it can be assumed a lot of decisions would be different, IMHO. :-\

There seems to be a certain... inertia, to the way historic events fold out. Allow me to try to formulate this. Any part of history is the product of interactions between ruling classes and their populace. Ruling classes influence their populace and each other, but their are certain times where the populace influence the ruling classes.
A question I often ask myself is " What if it had been Churchill instead of Chamberlain?" Would Churchill have tried to find appeasement with the Nazi regime? There is no true way of knowing this, but it is my belief that the call for appeasement was largely supported by the UK populace. As a true political animal, Churchill would at least have considered the same course of action Chamberlain actually took.

When it comes to matters of military nature I often ask myself how the Renard R.38 would have faired during the opening stages of the war. It might have been a good airplane, but could it have made a difference against the vast number of modern German aircraft invading the Belgian skies? I don't believe so, as the Zulus, Mongols, Soviets and such have shown numbers in themselves are a weapon.

The interbellum is filled with moments that seem as if they are keystones to the futher evolution into the history we know, our final product. But I don't believe they are all that important, as these moments in themselves are again a product of various actions and inactions, various interactions between rulers on all levels of society and the people they rule.

So... What if the Maginot line hadn't been there? I don't believe there is any doubt that the French would have amassed a substantial amount of defensive forces along the French / German border. It would still have been a very risky undertaking to vanquish these forces in a conventional head on way, and risky undertakings are something any military leader wishes to avoid as much as possible. Therefore the logical step would be to circumvent these forces... through Belgium? The option of least resistance.

 

[uk 75]

Very thoughtful and interesting thread which meshes with my recent Rhineland thread.
The extent to which the horrors of the War to end Wars or the Great War as World War One was known conditioned politics in Belgium, France and the UK is easy to forget.
The scale of loss and destruction in that war is beyond our comprehension today.

 

[Dilandu]

Frankly, my IMHO - there were no scenario in which France would be better without the Line than with it. The reality is, that France have a large border without significant natural barriers, facing a more populous countries which inevitably would field more troops than France - and French important industrial provinces are close to border. Fixed defenses at least allowed French Army some breathing space; some time to evaluate and react on attacks.

 

[Archibald]

Some fun facts / ramblings about the Maginot line...

French borders from south to north:
- Italy (the Alps)
- Switzerland (more Alps).
- Then: Germany (Alsace / Lorraine: flatlands)
- Luxemburg (Ardennes)
- Belgium up to the North Sea: Ardennes in the south, flatlands in the middle and the north.

French system of defense, south to north:
- the Alps
- Maginot line
- Ardennes
- bulk of the Armies + BEF + Belgian army.

The Maginot line was build to protect the entire German-French border, it carried on onto Luxemburg border as this country had not opposed it as Belgium did.

Hence the northern tip of the line was at the Luxemburg - Belgium - France border: Ouvrage de la Ferté.

von Manstein was a pragmatic guy. He took a map, pointed La Ferté on it, watched for the range of the guns there, added some safety margin (German efficiency as its best), and said "southern border of the Meuse crossings corridor - right here".
And from there he stacked its 7 Panzer divisions in three groups across a 100 km wide corridor. Two in the south, three in the middle, two north.

My grandfather was a radio in a armored division based on Hirson - Franco-Belgian border.
On May 10 he moved north, into Belgium. His unit was anihilated in central Belgium (battle of Dinant / Philippeville) the survivors fell back north to south across that 100 km wide corridor, with the bulk of the panzers and Stukas ahead of them coming like a meteorit on their flank: East to West, Sedan to Abbeville - into what was fast becoming the giant trap in northern France, with Dunkirk at the tip. They barely escaped from the perimeter. On May 19 my uncle was born but, had my grandfather been taken prisonier, no Mom (born in July 1943 ) and so I wouldn't type this message now.

One more Panzer was send crushing The Netherlands and two more were send in a suicidal move, right were the Allies awaited them: in central, flatland Belgium. At least those two were blunted and stopped at Gembloux / Namur on May 11. Bad luck, 7 went south and stabbed in the back.

The Germans did tried breaching the Maginot line and were repealed, except later in the campaign when morale was low and defensors scarces, and the line was outflanked from behind (the irony !)

 

[edwest4]

Where is all of this coming from? The Germans did not have to conquer the entire Maginot Line. All they needed was a breach in one sector and then send troops through. Captured German footage shows an acrobat sent against one such outlying bunker. He was carrying a ladder of precise length and a backpack/satchel. He runs to the side of the bunker, places the ladder, climbs to the top and goes to the edge with the gun slit. He then performs a maneuver where he falls into a position where he is suspended by the tops of his feet while the satchel slides down into one hand. This is followed by throwing the satchel through the gun slit. He then climbs back up, goes to the middle of the top of the bunker and lays down. A brief puff of smoke through the gun slit indicates the charge had gone off. The camera then shows German troops paddling across a narrow stream or moat.

No one here knows how the Germans attacked and neutralized the fort at Eban Emael?

 

[Dilandu]

Where is all of this coming from? The Germans did not have to conquer the entire Maginot Line. All they needed was a breach in one sector and then send troops through.

One problem - they could not do it quick. The whole point of the Line was not to be impenetrable; it was supposed to slow German breakthrough long enough so French reinforcements could be rushed it.

Yes, Germans could break through the Line. But it would took time. It took time even against outflanked and unsupported Line; against the Line with French divisions behind, it would took much more. And by the time Germans would be ready to send troops through... there would be literally no point of doing it, because French reinforcements would already rush in, and German army would be forced into headlong battle on a narrow front. In which French were just better.

Captured German footage shows an acrobat sent against one such outlying bunker. He was carrying a ladder of precise length and a backpack/satchel. He runs to the side of the bunker, places the ladder, climbs to the top and goes to the edge with the gun slit.

Second problem: this tricks could be done only against unsupported bunkers. While the Line was supposed to be supported by numerous field divisions. Granted, it would not be the best French troops, but even third-rate troops guarding the bunkers would ensure that Germans acrobats would not show anything to anyone.

 

[Michel Van]

The Maginot line was build to protect the entire German-French border, it carried on onto Luxemburg border as this country had not opposed it as Belgium did.

Original they wanted to install a series of Fortress and pillboxs from Liege down to french border to Maginot line
but that would have mean 25% of National Budget of Belgium would be spend on Bunker building for years to come,
And that in Middle of Great Depression !!!

Yes, Germans could break through the Line.

They simply by passed it, by going true Belgium, take out the handful Fortress the Belgium had.
While the British and French forces were waiting in Flanders to attack the Wehrmacht.
Those crash true the Belgium Ardennes into North France...

It has certain Irony that Hitler despite, he got reports how easy those Fortress were taken,
insisted to build the Mega project of Westwall, that was not so effective against a Allies invasion of 1944...

 

[Archibald]

Thank you @Dilandu...

 

[Justo Miranda]

Verdun Mk.II

 

[Dilandu]

They simply by passed it, by going true Belgium, take out the handful Fortress the Belgium had.
While the British and French forces were waiting in Flanders to attack the Wehrmacht.
Those crash true the Belgium Ardennes into North France...

Yeah, it was exactly what Line was supposed to do.

To put it simply, the idea was to channel Germans toward Belgium. To A - ensure that Belgium would fight, and B - to meet the bulk of German army on the relatuvely narrow front that favored defense. And this worked. The problem was, that French field army was not able to defeat Germans here.

The Line done exactly what it was supposed to do. It covered French border during mobilization, it ensured against strikes on South, and it channeled German attack to North. The inability of French army to defeat it, does not have anything to do with the Line.

 

[publiusr]

The Maginot line did not go across the Belgian border, though. If it had been completed earlier and Germany attacked later…it might have made all the difference.

 

[Dilandu]

The Maginot line did not go across the Belgian border, though. If it had been completed earlier and Germany attacked later…it might have made all the difference

It was not supposed to, at least in the initial design. The whole idea was to force Germans to attack through Belgium - which, as French, assumed, would allow France field army to meet & destroy them.

 

[riggerrob]

The Maginot line did not go across the Belgian border, though. If it had been completed earlier and Germany attacked later…it might have made all the difference.

I have long wondered why the French Army did not survey artillery positions, dig gun pits, trenches, MG nests, ammo depots, etc. along their Northern Border. First stage gun pits and trenches only need to be shored up with sand bags and timber. A lack of concrete pill boxes might relax Belgian politicians, while pre-surveyed positions would simplify French Army defenses. ?????

 

[riggerrob]

Dear Archibald,
Thanks for bringing topography into this discussion. The French German border near Alsace and Lorraine follows the Rhine River. Land is flat and swampy on both sides of the river requiring extensive diking and drainage to make it arable. Any fighting on the Rhine River flat lands would soon have deteriorated into sodden trench warfare as miserable as WW1.
Therefore Maginot Line defenses were built a few miles west of the Rhine in the Voges Mountains (e.g. Metz). The Voges Mountains start 20 kilometers West of the Rhine, while the hilly Black Forest starts 25 kilometers to the East. Most roads, canals, and railroads flow North to South along that valley. That terrain and the Eiffel Mountains to the North proved easily defensible in late 1944 when the American Army suffered heavy casualties capturing Metz and the Hurtgen Forest.

 

[Archibald]

The two Armies that disintegrated against the main german thrust were
- 9th Army, Pierre André Corap
- 2nd Army, Charles Huntziger

Some words about them.

Corap

Saw the disaster in the making because he was painfully aware his defenses on the Meuse lacked most of the basics: concrete, ammunitions, machine guns, AAA... tried to tell Generalissimo Gamelin. Gamelin answer "I'm not interested in your sector, The Meuse."
(I KID YOU NOT. "La Meuse Corap, ça ne m'intéresse pas." Verbatim. Fuck.)

(Rightly) incensed, Corap went to the French parliament. Found an attentive ear in Pierre Taittinger. Taittinger who had fought WWI went to see Corap armies AT THE EXACT PLACE where the Germans broke out three months later. He ended supportive of Corap cause. He come back determined to help... and nothing moved. There, the decaying 3rd Republic went into the way.

Huntziger

One of the "rising stars" among the mostly senile French Generals, was one of the younger.
Late April 1940 he said "Surely, the Germans will never attack in my sector, or Corap. NO WAY."
On MAY 7, 1940, he did it again. "The Germans ? attacking my sector ? NO WAY !"
Such a prescient, inspired commander. Don't you think ?
But make no mistake, he managed to put the blame on Corap and ended in Vichy serving Pétain. He helped writting the first anti-jews "laws" that led to the Vel d'Hiv utter shame in 1942: 13 000 jews captured in some days, 67 000 more later, 80 000 total send to their deaths as Pierre Laval "bargaining chip "with Adolf.
(Sic. It was Laval defense in 1945 before he ate a hail of well deserved bullets. "I bargained the jews, French or foreign, to alliviate the suffering of the occupied France population. Hey, I was good at bargaining with Adolf. Give me a medal !"
...
"Shut up and eat machine gun bullets, you arsehole."
...
Huntziger died in November 1941 when his aircraft smashed into Mont Aigoual, a 1600 m tall mountain in southern France. Good riddance, really.

Now you can see why France was kind of doomed... the decaying Third Republic and the senile, complacent Generals were two disasters in the making.

 

[Michel Van]

The Maginot line did not go across the Belgian border, though. If it had been completed earlier and Germany attacked later…it might have made all the difference.

I have long wondered why the French Army did not survey artillery positions, dig gun pits, trenches, MG nests, ammo depots, etc. along their Northern Border. First stage gun pits and trenches only need to be shored up with sand bags and timber. A lack of concrete pill boxes might relax Belgian politicians, while pre-surveyed positions would simplify French Army defenses. ?????

Like I posted 11 years ago
The Belgium bunkers fortress were not bad, but bad managed by Belgiums.
There were equip with short or medium guns, instead original planned long range Guns,
This took away their ability to support each other in combat.
(same goes for the pillboxs they installed)

Other issue was Belgium Military were high rank officer were french speaking and common soldiers who speak flemish.
it went so far that a translator was needed to give orders...
To make matter worst the most important Fortress d'Ében-Émael was used as penal institution by Belgium Army !
and disciplinary transfer there, the worst the Army had to offer.
This bunker needed a Elite team, not inmates...

The Wehrmacht was very good informed about Belgium Fortress
Mostly by Hitlerjugend ! you read right, thanks to exchange program Belgium let foreign boy scouts into kingdom.
also the Hitlerjugend, who scout leaders were on spy mission on Belgium Defences
(next to that some east Belgians that speak germans help also, in hope to return to Germany again after 1919)

with info it was relative easy for Wehrmacht to over run Belgium
knowing which pillboxs was useless, were to find telephone wires that connect the Fortress and cut them (were 30 cm under ground)
Next to that escalated the situation in Fortress d'Ében-Émael into total chaos do inmates.
while the Crews of Fort d'Aubin-Neufchâteau, Fort d'Battice and Fort d'Tancrémont look helplessness on disaster.

it has certain irony that Fort d'Tancrémont was not attack by any Wehrmach forces,
There crew left the bunker and sealed it after Capitulation of Belgium, only to be open end of 1960s

 

[Archibald]

Wasn't the Belgian King that died in a mountaining accident on February 17, 1934, more favorable to a military alliance with the French ? And his successor brought back neutrality afterwards, circa 1936 ?

Note: the same week, February 6, 1934 France nearly got its Reischtag moment when right-wing nuts & rioters nearly burned the Palais Bourbon and fifteen people died... (sounds familiar ? January 6 of a certain year ? )

1934 was definitely a shitty year. On October 9, not only the King of Yugoslavia was killed in Marseille; but Louis Barthou diedtoo, giving his first political office to Pierre "Pétain - Vichy" Laval; while General Georges was crippled, giving the Generallissime job to "I have no brain, Maurice Gamelin".

In a sense, France WWII utter shame was sealed that day: October 9, 1934 in Marseilles. It was Gamelin and Laval big breakthroughs; the former caused the military defeat, the latter resulted in Vichy. Frack.

 

[Michel Van]

Wasn't the Belgian King that died in a mountaining accident on February 17, 1934,

We could play several scenarios here,
One: King Albert I. not Died on February 17, 1934
Two: Leopold III. dies in a car accident on august 29, 1935 and his brother Prince Charles become successor.
Three: both died and Prince Charles become King in 1935

In all three scenarios, Belgium stick to there Treaties with French and British,
but the Belgium government would do same mistakes they done in OTL,
This would change radical with scenario one/two with German rearmament.
under King Albert Belgium start also rearmament, even modified the Fortress with better guns and get right crews.

Scenario three would Belgium Military the same, but still respect their Treaties with French and British.
but also include the Netherlands and Luxemburg in a defence pact in case of German Invasion. (Benelux)

But those scenario would only prolong the Wehrmacht invasion of Belgium.
Were King Albert rule from London or a King Charles fight as leader of Belgium Resistance in underground, during the war.
but Scenario one has repercussions Belgium rearmament would have left huge national debt after the War...

Note
Prince Charles how was Regnet from Belgium from 1944 to 1950, was one best leader Belgium ever had.
he made needed social reforms, kickstart Europa economy under Marshal plan, one of founding members of NATO
It really sad he was never a king