Seriously, why didn't anynobody thought of this?

In short, invading through Switzerland was one idea Germans had but with logistics of that time, the problem of Swiss army and terrain that idea was discarded.
Invading via sea was always hard as fuck, especially against a prepared enemy. And we're talking about early 20th century here.

But they did, OP. An amphibious landing was considered.

As for violating the neutrality of Switzerland, that one was not.

File: plan2.png (265KB, 1280x473px) Image search: [Google]

265KB, 1280x473px

>>1718802
And if that didn't work this would. 19th century mindset was still strong with french generality?

>>1718802
if they just keep digging perhaps they'll just float away into the atlantic..

>>1718856
t. player of paradox games on easy difficulty

Me and Hitler used to Blunts on the daily, he talked that crazy shit like you is rn. But I was like Hitla calm down, you gon get the jews all up In a bunch

am I very naive if I find the using-of-Belgium-as-a-shortcut twice of Germans very dishonorable, like cheating?

>>1718934
yes

>>1718802

Because fighting a fucking real war is far harder than drawing arrows.

The French army in 1939/40 had literally zero offensive capacity. Their doctrine was defensive, their logistics was shit and still defensive-oriented. Moreover, it was universally thought that armored offensive through Ardennes region (and whole of Belgium for that matter) is impossible due to terrain.

>>1718934
>dishonorable
>cheating
>in fucking politics and war
Are you Polish? Only those retards think in "honor" bullshit during war/politics. It's also main reason they're a shithole.

>>1719211
Can't you say it's WW1, tard?
Does the word "trenches" make you think of WW2?

>>1719211
>Because fighting a fucking real war is far harder than drawing arrows.
... he says, completely correct
>The French army in 1939/40 had literally zero offensive capacity
... he continues, completely undermining his post

dey did dun dat op

google: operation hush

Fucking mountains yo

And the technology for a landing of that scale wasn't ready. You could land piecemeal bits that would get shredded by Germany but there's 0 point

>>1719231

The map is obviously post-ww1 France.

>>1718856
Even a low level officer could see what is happening pretty early on with this plan.

>>1719231
France controls Alsace-Lorraine on the mas, so its post ww1

>>1718934
Tbh it's Belgium's fault for existing

>>1718802
Do You realize how hard it is to attack an eqaully strong enemy with an amphibious invasion and attacking over mountains is one of the most difficult tasks any army can perform. I don't know of any operation taking place in mountains that didn't end up in a huge cluster fuck.

>>1721064
My dick's operation in yo mommas titty mountains ended up in a huge clusterfuck lmao

>>1718934
can't wait for them to do it again with france still having no measures in place to prevent it

But they did

The French had treaties with Belgium and thus couldn't build fortifications on Belgiums border.

If you're talking about later into the war well they couldn't go through Switzlerand and lots of Alsace Lorraine wasn't easy to attack, the germans had fortified their entire front and lots of it was also mountainous

>>1718856
They tried that multiple times and it didn't work

Why would the germans keep advancing? What happens when you cant fill the holes and then the germans surround the french? What if you move away troops to fight in the center and get a larger push on the flanks?

>>1721294
IF this is world war 2, the Belgians did have an alliance treaty with the Brits and French to defend against the Germans, then chickened out in the last minute.
That's what happens when you trust non countries.

>>1721282
Refugees don't need to cross Belgium in order to reach France.

>>1719216
Losing sides will always bitch about things like that.
Frogs will cry about how the Germans were cowards for going straight at Paris, Wehrboos will rail about the war being unfair because it was Germany against the world.
When you have retard strategy or diplomacy it's easy to rationalize it as your side simply being braver or ready to stand up for its morals.

Building defenses behind the low countries would've been a dipolomatic insult akin to saying "i know we're friends and we gurantee your independance, but we think you suck at war and we're just going to let the germans take your land while we prepare over here).

Invading switzerland was out of the question politically as well.