...the Line achieved the specific task it was intended to do, rendering a direct assault against France's Eastern border impossible (the few Maginot forts which were directly attacked by German armoured troops held very well). It would be more truthful to state that the Line was sound, but France's strategic use of it was poor. As originally envisioned, the Maginot Line was only part of a larger defence plan, in which the Line was to provide coordinated backup to resistance from the French Army. But execution of the plan was lax and this, combined with a failure to appreciate that the frustration of one particular approach would not necessarily render an aggressor impotent, cost both the Line and the French Army their effectiveness. In some sense, French authorities came to believe their own propaganda: that the mere existence of the Line rendered them impervious to invasion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line
Is it possible that the Line was not a bad idea, but instead that France failed to utilize it properly?
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt would have been a whole lot better if it had covered Belgium as well. The Germans went that way in both world wars.
Is it possible that the Line was not a bad idea, but instead that France failed to utilize it properly?
Did the Germans ever take it over or did they blow it up?
The line was not as useful as the French thought. Aging doctrine from aging Generals from WWI added to this false belief of security. They should have known better since they saw for themselves the capabilities and potential capabilities of the 'tank' in WWI.
The Maginot Line ended at the Ardennes Forest in Belguim. Big mistake! It was her the Germans simply entered and 'went around' the Maginot Line at the start of WWII for France then struck another surprising attack in December of 1944 by launching "Wacht Am Rhine", watch on the Rhine, a suprise attack better known as the Battle of the Bulge.
The Maginot Line, designed to stop an incursion into France simpy failed - in 1940. I threw in the Bulge reference in 1944 for historical interest. Nobody thought an attach could be launched through the Ardennes - and the Germans did it twice!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageFrance was allied with Belgium and could not extend the Line there for diplomatic reasons. Belgium betrayed France by breaking the alliance suddenly, allowing Germany to bypass the Line.
It would have been a whole lot better if it had covered Belgium as well. The Germans went that way in both world wars.
Did the Germans ever take it over or did they blow it up?
The Germans then conquered France and isolated the Line. The French surrendered and ordered their troops to leave the line. Then the Germans occupied it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_line#German_invasion
I suppose the lesson here was not that the Line was a bad idea, but rather that putting your nation's security in the hands of potentially fickle allies too much is a bad idea.
"Is it possible that the Line was not a bad idea, but instead that France failed to utilize it properly?" No. Impossible to utilize properly.
First of all the line was stagnant, the guns only pointed in one direction (many of which had never fired a shot). The strategy was not mobile or reversable. It was a huge failure of strategy and deployment. Once circumvented that was it...kaput. No capabilities of fighting in both directions. that is really short sighted.
Originally posted by sword4damoclesWith a large, highly mobile reserve, French forces might have been able to concentrate more military strength at the battlefield, knowing that the Germans could not then outflank them as the Line held so much territory.
"Is it possible that the Line was not a bad idea, but instead that France failed to utilize it properly?" No. Impossible to utilize properly.
First of all the line was stagnant, the guns only pointed in one direction (many of which had never fired a shot). The strategy was not mobile or reversable. It was a huge failure of strategy and deployme ...[text shortened]... as it...kaput. No capabilities of fighting in both directions. that is really short sighted.
EDIT - If they'd had specialist troops at the Ardennes (skirmisher types suited to the woods with anti armor equipent) isn't is possible Germany would have found it extremely difficult passing through the woods? France assumed diplomacy would hold this position, and that was the biggest mistake I think.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI don't understand exactly what you're saying.
With a large, highly mobile reserve, French forces might have been able to concentrate more military strength at the battlefield, knowing that the Germans could not then outflank them as the Line held so much territory.
France had a mobile reserve and they had about 200,000 plus English exipditionary troops in France when the invasion started. Remember, England declared war on Germany, not the other way around and England put troops in France to shore up her defences. Neither nation really expected Lightning Warfare (Blitzkreig) to work very well in France. Partially due to the false hope placed in the Maginot line and that no viable land attack could come from the Ardennes in Belguim.
To further add strange occurances to the invasion of France and in keeping with Hitler's desire not to go to war with England, the German forces under direct orders from Hitler allowed the BEF to escape back to England across the channel. Around 200,000 British troops escaped certain devastation. Certain devastation.
There's a lot of inaccurate historical statements here. France declined to extend the Maginot Line all the way to the Channel because of cost, not Belgium. Belgian troops fought hard and Belgium only surrendered after her (and France's position) was hopeless. And Hitler certainly didn't deliberately allow the BEF to escape; he thought the Luftwaffe could prevent any large evacuations until the Germans could reduce the Dunkirk bridgehead.
France's strategy, based on the horrific trench warfare and bloody futility of battles like the Somme and Verdun, was too defensive minded. France could have moved deeply into Germany in 1939 while the bulk of German forces were attacking Poland. Wars are not won by defensive lines, but by troops and the ability and will to deploy them aggressively to destroy the enemy's forces.
Originally posted by no1marauder"And Hitler certainly didn't deliberately allow the BEF to escape; he thought the Luftwaffe could prevent any large evacuations until the Germans could reduce the Dunkirk bridgehead." -- I disagree with this statement.
There's a lot of inaccurate historical statements here. France declined to extend the Maginot Line all the way to the Channel because of cost, not Belgium. Belgian troops fought hard and Belgium only surrendered after her (and France's position) was hopeless. And Hitler certainly didn't deliberately allow the BEF to escape; he thought the Luftwaffe could ...[text shortened]... troops and the ability and will to deploy them aggressively to destroy the enemy's forces.
How then does one account for the complete halt of the land forces of Germany and Hitler's Generals begging him to let then drive to the coast? Your statement with regard to this is simply not fact. And don't give me any fuel statement either because this was not the case. Hitler did allow the BEF to escape via the channel so he could use it in further discussions with Churchill.