Lonesome EJ and Little Hawk have both rightly surmised the way I was thinking. In fact, the idea was not my own, of course, it had already been broadcast widely in Mark Arnold Foster's epic series,"The World At War". I am sure other historians were aware of it.
Obviously Keith is right to say that Britain wanted a delay. It certainly felt weak and did not feel that it had the means to fight a global war with its own resources. That assumption was correct, of course. Once the Axis powers had reached a certain size and momentum, it took the two superpowers Russia and the USA to crush them.
I know it is easy to be wise with hindsight. The obvious move would have been for France to attack across the Eiffel. However, the country there would have favoured the defenders, who may possibly have been able to slow up the advance long enough for troops to return from the East. A better military plan would have been to attack through Belgium and Holland and gone straight for the Ruhrgebiet. It could well have fallen before the Germans knew what had hit it. That would have violated Belgian and Dutch neutrality, of course, so it would have been a political problem. At the time, Belgium and Holland had no reason to believe that they would be overrun within a year.
What is certain, is that allowing Germany to control several thousand   miles of Atlantic coastline, when the Royal Navy was geared up mainly for surface to surface warfare, was about the worst strategic scenario Britain could find itself in. Like I said, we have the benefit of hindsight.