Should France and Britain have invaded Germany in 1935?

[buritobr]

In 1935, Hitler started to break the Treaty of Versailles. Germany should have no more than 100K soldiers, but Hitler started to increase the size of the army. He started also to produce forbidden weapons. Soon, the Rhine region was occupied again by the military, although it was forbidden by Versailles.

Should France and Britain have invaded Germany when the German rearmament was still at the beginning? Fighting against the Reich at this stage would be easier. On the other side, they didn't have hinsight. And maybe, some member of the french and british governments were interested in an anti-Soviet military superpower.

[Meclazine for Israel]

That is a tough call.

I don't think the intelligence was clear enough at that stage. By that I don't think they knew the megalomaniacal plans that were abpout to take place

[Pericles]

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was the easiest provocation and was likely a bluff by Hitler anyway. France could have smashed Germany that year. In terms of their willingness to do so, they were so afraid of war and saw Versailles as unjust anyway so they were going to let it slide. The Sudetenland crisis though was an inexcusable moral failure and would have led to a significantly better outcome. France itself could have survived up until the middle of May 1940 with slightly more luck or better strategy though.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes, of course. It's understandable why they didn't, and I have no idea how I would have felt at the time, but in hindsight it was obvious that we ought to have nipped any attempt at German rearmament in the bud.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. If there's something like this that you're looking for, it's this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

[Skill and Chance]

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was the easiest provocation and was likely a bluff by Hitler anyway. France could have smashed Germany that year. In terms of their willingness to do so, they were so afraid of war and saw Versailles as unjust anyway so they were going to let it slide. The Sudetenland crisis though was an inexcusable moral failure and would have led to a significantly better outcome. France itself could have survived up until the middle of May 1940 with slightly more luck or better strategy though.

French surrender in WWII was very much a strategic choice.  The hit to morale after losing Paris would have been extreme.  However, if they could overcome that, it's conceivable that with the help of Britain, they could have stabilized a front in the rural middle of the country for the duration of the war.

[Pericles]

The remilitarisation of the Rhineland was the easiest provocation and was likely a bluff by Hitler anyway. France could have smashed Germany that year. In terms of their willingness to do so, they were so afraid of war and saw Versailles as unjust anyway so they were going to let it slide. The Sudetenland crisis though was an inexcusable moral failure and would have led to a significantly better outcome. France itself could have survived up until the middle of May 1940 with slightly more luck or better strategy though.

French surrender in WWII was very much a strategic choice.  The hit to morale after losing Paris would have been extreme.  However, if they could overcome that, it's conceivable that with the help of Britain, they could have stabilized a front in the rural middle of the country for the duration of the war.

My understanding is the Germans had aleady outpaced the retreating French armies, while the British would not be prepared to try save parts of France because they needed to have an army for the Battle of Britain. Maybe the French could have formed a stronger defensive line around Paris and made it into a Stalingrad-style urban combat battle, to at least inflict heavier casualties. However, after the Germans reached the Channel the numbers were unfavorable and there were no great defensive positions (which is why Reynaud realised France was defeated on May 16, though maybe that was not certain for a few more days).

[buritobr]

No. If there's something like this that you're looking for, it's this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

But in 1939, German rearmament had already taken place

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

No. If there's something like this that you're looking for, it's this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saar_Offensive

But in 1939, German rearmament had already taken place

But Germany hadn't invaded anywhere in 1935, so it would have been weird to single them out while Italy was invading Ethiopia and Japan had recently invaded Manchuria.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I mean France and the UK could have invaded Germany when they were in Poland in 1939 and probably finished the Nazis of there and then.

[Sir Mohamed]

This may be a stupid question, but wouldn't it have been much cheaper to send in an assassination squad to take Hitler and his close confidant out? For sure, it must look like a domestic operation or just an accident.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

The French army wasn't even ready for an offensive war in 1939, so I have no idea what an invasion of Germany in 1935 would have accomplished other than pissing everyone off and making Germany look like a victim to the world.

Economic sanctions would have been more realistic, and likely would have done significant damage to Germany's rearmament. Germany went through a balance of payments crisis in 1934 and suspended servicing on foreign debt but the Bank of England prioritised maintaining its trading relationship with Germany instead of starting a trade war.

[Lord Halifax]

The French army wasn't even ready for an offensive war in 1939, so I have no idea what an invasion of Germany in 1935 would have accomplished other than pissing everyone off and making Germany look like a victim to the world.

Can't remember the details, but I once read from a credible source that the leadership of the German army had agreed to topple Hitler if France had invaded in 1936 following the remilitarization of the Rhineland. That would likely also have been the case in 1935. The German military was in no position to fight a major war in the mid-30s and the generals were acutely aware of that. I'll try if I can find the source, but I think the answer to your question is regime change.

[RINO Tom]

The French army wasn't even ready for an offensive war in 1939, so I have no idea what an invasion of Germany in 1935 would have accomplished other than pissing everyone off and making Germany look like a victim to the world.

Economic sanctions would have been more realistic, and likely would have done significant damage to Germany's rearmament. Germany went through a balance of payments crisis in 1934 and suspended servicing on foreign debt but the Bank of England prioritised maintaining its trading relationship with Germany instead of starting a trade war.

I believe Jodl is on record as saying if France actually pushed into Germany during the invasion of Poland, the war would have been over in a month.

[buritobr]

France occupied the Ruhr Region in 1923 because of a much smaller misbehavior

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The French army wasn't even ready for an offensive war in 1939, so I have no idea what an invasion of Germany in 1935 would have accomplished other than pissing everyone off and making Germany look like a victim to the world.

Economic sanctions would have been more realistic, and likely would have done significant damage to Germany's rearmament. Germany went through a balance of payments crisis in 1934 and suspended servicing on foreign debt but the Bank of England prioritised maintaining its trading relationship with Germany instead of starting a trade war.

I believe Jodl is on record as saying if France actually pushed into Germany during the invasion of Poland, the war would have been over in a month.

Well, they did, depending on your definition of the word "push".

[Statilius the Epicurean]

Can't remember the details, but I once read from a credible source that the leadership of the German army had agreed to topple Hitler if France had invaded in 1936 following the remilitarization of the Rhineland. That would likely also have been the case in 1935. The German military was in no position to fight a major war in the mid-30s and the generals were acutely aware of that. I'll try if I can find the source, but I think the answer to your question is regime change.

Haven't heard that about the Rhineland in '36. There were rumours of a coup by the army in '38 if Hitler went to war with Britain and France over Czechoslovakia, but who knows. The actual historical record of the army opposing Hitler was not good: just one abortive coup by a group of isolated plotters in 1944.

I believe Jodl is on record as saying if France actually pushed into Germany during the invasion of Poland, the war would have been over in a month.

France did push into Germany: it was slowed by a number of factors, but Poland collapsed within a couple of weeks rendering the offensive irrelevant. Best case scenario is France mobilises quicker, runs up against the Siegfried Line and forces Germany to move units from the east, maybe giving Poland an extra week or two.

[Alcibiades]

Can't remember the details, but I once read from a credible source that the leadership of the German army had agreed to topple Hitler if France had invaded in 1936 following the remilitarization of the Rhineland. That would likely also have been the case in 1935. The German military was in no position to fight a major war in the mid-30s and the generals were acutely aware of that. I'll try if I can find the source, but I think the answer to your question is regime change.

Haven't heard that about the Rhineland in '36. There were rumours of a coup by the army in '38 if Hitler went to war with Britain and France over Czechoslovakia, but who knows. The actual historical record of the army opposing Hitler was not good: just one abortive coup by a group of isolated plotters in 1944.

My understanding is that the putative 1938 plotters were far more isolated than the Stauffenberg group, who, while failing to mobilise any popular support, did at least have extensive connections across elite society (with the notable exception of any leading industrialists). Ludwig Beck, who would of course also go on to be involved in the 20 July Plot, was really the only name of any note who was eager to overthrow Hitler in 1938 in the event of the invasion of Czechoslovakia triggering a broader war.

Though as far as comparisons between 1935 and 1938 go, it might be worth noting that the army had become significantly more ‘co-ordinated’ by then, with Hitler having stacked the top leadership with Nazi loyalists following the Blomberg-Fritsch crisis of early 1938, perhaps reducing the likelihood of a successful coup.

[NewYorkExpress]

If France in particular had invaded possibly as part of deal with Stalin, as early as the Night of the Long Knives, we never would have had to deal with WWII, or the Holocaust.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Somewhat ironically, such a move might have only postponed World War II (or at least another great European War) for another 10 to 20 years, since Germany possibly would have tried to take revenge for the "invasion of 1935" eventually.

To settle the issue once and for all, Germany needed to be guilty beyond any doubt, I guess, and only WWII could have done that.

[compson]

Politically, Britain would never have gotten directly involved at this stage.

Nevertheless, on paper, France, Poland, and Czechoslovakia had enough military forces on their own to beat Germany as late as the beginning of 1938. The intervening two years made a huge difference for Germany's rearmament (which is why the Sitzkrieg happened after all). Additionally, Germany was able to defeat the three countries piecemeal. Czech tanks formed a crucial part of the invasion force into France.