Why does history say the Maginot line was a failure?

faded glory · July 16, 2002, 00:55

Well? Why is it that the Maginot line has been treated as some sort of catastrophic failure? The fact is, it wasnt. The germans pounded the living daylights out of it before they swept threw the low countries. The french returned the favor with devasting fire at every point the germans tried to take. Shortly before the BOF started, the germans brought up 3 204mm guns and pounded a small section of the line. They bombed the living **** outta the 40 forts along it. It did nothing. The french responded with devasting results on the germans. Even when the line was flanked and the French army was turned tail running back to paris the line held. The last fort gave out 7 days after the armistice was signed, from orders from the vichy french. And its important to note that the germans had alot of trouble taking the few forts they did.

So why does every show I watch say its was a huge failure. It was meant to protect forces from crossing the rhine. It did exactly that. It wasnt designed to be flanked and surrounded and pounded to oblivion by 100 88mms on all sides. I suspect, had the french, belgians, and BEF been completed with there section of the Maginot line from Sedan to the Antwerp, World war2 would been alot different (these forts where only 25% complete and the belgians where slacking off on there part of the Maginot, instead concentrating on Eben Emal and a line along the Muese).

Discuss!

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 00:57

Why does history say the Maginot line was a failure?

Hmmm, let's see, Germans enter Paris June 1940.

Yep, I'd say that's a failure

Hobbes · July 16, 2002, 00:59

It sure didn't stop those Romans from invading now did it?

KrazyHorse · July 16, 2002, 01:00

Because static defenses were conclusively shown to not be worthwhile in the age of mechanization of warfare. Whether or not the defense was tactically sound is a less important question.

Oerdin · July 16, 2002, 01:03

The line would have been a success if the Frogs had built it all the way to the channel. Unfortunately for them they got cheap and left it half done.

orange · July 16, 2002, 01:10

most importantly of all, it gave the French and the French military a false sense of security, which caused them to become stuck on the thought that fighting on their own turf was a scenario that just wouldn't happen.

Besides, it's major failure was that it didn't cover the lowlands. I think that had to do with Belgium wanting neutrality, but hey, look where that got them

KrazyHorse · July 16, 2002, 01:18

You mean to the position of glorious Aryan partners in the German Reich?

orange · July 16, 2002, 01:33

The good thing about being Belgian is, you can pick and choose who you want to be associated with. When the Germans are up, you're German. When the French are up, you're French. When Holland legalizes cannibis , well hey you're Dutch then too. It's a win win win situation.

KrazyHorse · July 16, 2002, 01:36

I thought that was the good thing about being Swiss.

orange · July 16, 2002, 01:38

them too...they're evil 'neutral' buggers, think they can get away with staying out of every single war. Well **** them, world war 3 is going to be Belgium and Holland vs. Switzerland, Sweden, and Monaco goddamnit!

KrazyHorse · July 16, 2002, 01:40

I just read a sci-fi book in which part of the background is that the Swiss banking system started a world war against them...

Dan Severn · July 16, 2002, 01:42

In the words of George Smith Patton, "Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of mankind."

BTW: The French may have stood a chance against the german army that early in the war, had they not been tied down in their forts. A mobile defense really would have been able to at least significantly inconvenience the germans. Furthermore, the hun weren't trying to make it through the maginot line- that would have been really dumb. They did, however, prevent the French from bringing much-needed reinforcements to the ardennes region. Notice, also, that out of the three wars the second german empire fought against the french, all followed the same basic strategy, two were humiliating defeats for france, and in the great war they were bailed out by the brits and later the americans. I guess that's what they get for eating snails.

That's a heckuva BTW.

orange · July 16, 2002, 01:46

i disagree. France was in no shape to fight World War II, not after what they went through in World War I...sure mobilized forces would have been better, but they still would have gone down swinging. Ideally, they would have extended the Magniot line up through Belgium or out into Northern France. Certainly would have been more effective. As everyone learned from trench warfare, the tiniest slit in a line of fortification is enough to let the enemy through to whatever it is you're defending.

The maginot line was very effective in the east and in preventing invasion from Italy...and fundamentally it wasn't a bad idea for defenses either

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 01:51

a. fixed lines of fortifications failed wherever they were tried in world war II.

b. the maginot line tied up the bulk of French forces, over 80%, which robbed the French army of the mobility to respond to the German breakthrough in Sedan.

c. The line influenced French strategy and force development in very bad ways. 2 examples stand out.

- France did not attempt to invade Germany whilst the bulk of their forces were in Poland. German defences were quite weak in the West, lacking even sufficient ammmunition, and Germany's general's feared such an attack most of all, beleieving they might not be able to keep the French army out of the Ruhr.

- the requirements and strategic philosophy of the maginot line, which was quite erroneously based on the positional warfare lessons of world war I, led the French to break down their armored formations and deploy most of them as infantry support along the length of the maginot line. France actually had more tanks than Germany and some of better quality like the Char-B but the maginot line completely screwed up their deployment. Only De Gaulle's brigade (?) was a true modern armored formation. This approach to armored deployment went right against a famous French dictum "don't put your soldiers into penny packets."

d. all the hard fighting to defend the maginot line which faded glory mentions was completely pointless once it had been outflanked and Paris had fallen. The fact the French army clung tenaciously to the fortifications only made the encirclement of the bulk of the French Army easier for the Germans.

e. we should all thank God faded glory is not Defence Minister.

CyberGnu · July 16, 2002, 03:09

IIRC, the belgians didn't build their part of the Maginot becuase they trusted the Dutch, who in turn had threatened to flood their country if Germany invaded.

Well, the blitzkrieg took the Dutch by suprise, so they never had the opportunity to open the floodgates...

Sweden had a similar philosophy, threatening to blow up the iron mines in central sweden. This threat worked fine.

What is the moral of the story? Always put a lot of mountains between your country and the closest german tanks.

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 03:14

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
IIRC, the belgians didn't build their part of the Maginot becuase they trusted the Dutch, who in turn had threatened to flood their country if Germany invaded.

Well, the blitzkrieg took the Dutch by suprise, so they never had the opportunity to open the floodgates...

No that isn't true. The Dutch flooded but the Germans didn't come that way.

The Maginot line was incomplete in 1940. Would it have made a difference? Probably not.

CyberGnu · July 16, 2002, 03:17

you sure? The point was to flood the lowlands so that the german army would be mired in the mud...

orange · July 16, 2002, 03:19

they didn't go through Holland to get to France. They went through Belgium.

They took Amsterdam before invading France, and it didn't take them long either.

Oerdin · July 16, 2002, 03:32

As I recall the Dutch had a series of fortresses along the German border however the Nazis used a surprise airborne invasion thus doing an end room around the forts.

Still if the forts weren't there then the Germans would have just rolled over them with tanks so at least they forced the Germans to fight on both land and air.

TheBirdMan · July 16, 2002, 03:33

Quote:

e. we should all thank God faded glory is not Defence Minister.

Agree. Faded Glory should be President! Then all conflicts could be solved through a decent CallToPower MP game.

And Solver+Ming could be members of the government. They always keep an eye on Faded.

OMG - what am I writing?

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 03:36

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberGnu
you sure? The point was to flood the lowlands so that the german army would be mired in the mud...

That's what they thought maybe but actually the German attack on Northern Belgium and Holland was merely a feint designed to draw the Franch and British armies defending Northern France as far into Belgium as possible. The main thrust was through the Ardennes and involved a drive not on Paris but straight for the channel ports to close the trap. Holland was only attacked because the Germans thought an attack on Belgium alone would not draw the allied forces out of position enough for the attack to work. In the event, it worked brilliantly.

This map shows it well (if it will cooperate). The shadow arrow is what the allies thought they were countering - basically a repeat of the 1914 Schlieffen plan. The white arrow is what the germans were actually did.

This map also shows just how useless the Maginot line was.

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 03:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
As I recall the Dutch had a series of fortresses along the German border however the Nazis used a surprise airborne invasion thus doing an end room around the forts.

Still if the forts weren't there then the Germans would have just rolled over them with tanks so at least they forced the Germans to fight on both land and air.

That fighting didn't matter a damn - see my map. In fact the longer the Dutch and Belgians held out in the North, the better it was for the Germans in trapping the French and British who were coming to their aid.

Learn from the master

Oerdin · July 16, 2002, 03:47

I didn't say it mattered. I just said it happened. Still me thinks it helped Dutch pride.

Alexander's Horse · July 16, 2002, 03:56

You can see from the map what a brilliant plan it was though.

Where the Maginot line really screwed the French was they refused to abandon it after the German breakthrough. Instead of falling back on Paris as they had done in World War I, their idiot generals pretty much gave the germans a free run to Paris and kept most of their army in a meaningless defence of Alsace Lorraine.

I don't know where faded glory gets this idea of heavy fighting to "take" the maginot line. The Germans did test out their artillery and such on it but apart from that they just cordoned it off and most of the French army, considerd the best in Europe at the time, pretty much surrendered without firing more than a few shots in anger.

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 04:27

All true from the Horse, except...

A majority of the French mechanised force was commited to the advance into Belgium, as well as all of the BEF.

When the Germans struck through the Ardennes and broke out at Sedan, they quickly split the best of the Allied forces from their lines of communication and supply. That, combined with a painfully slow reaction to the German thrust (the French command never gained a solid grasp of the situation) led to the destruction of the only well equipped forces to face the panzers almost by defualt.

CyberGnu · July 16, 2002, 04:40

Ahhh

*taking hat off for Horse*

ravagon · July 16, 2002, 04:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse

Where the Maginot line really screwed the French was they refused to abandon it after the German breakthrough. Instead of falling back on Paris as they had done in World War I, their idiot generals pretty much gave the germans a free run to Paris and kept most of their army in a meaningless defence of Alsace Lorraine.

Problem there was that after the breach of their lines they would have been unable to mount an effective withdrawl/counterattack. As you already pointed out their armour was dispersed and couldn't have been reformed in time to stop the fall of Paris.
Whether or not they could/should have reformed and later made an attempt to cut the German lines in turn though - disregarding their capital - is another question entirely...

Quote:

I don't know where faded glory gets this idea of heavy fighting to "take" the maginot line. The Germans did test out their artillery and such on it but apart from that they just cordoned it off and most of the French army, considerd the best in Europe at the time, pretty much surrendered without firing more than a few shots in anger.

Analysing German records after the war indeed made it quite clear that the "attack" on the line was nothing more than a feint. Certainly any indication of "heavy losses" to the German forces is a gross exaggeration.

(f) I wonder if FG is the reincarnated French Defense minister - circa 1940

Deathwalker · July 16, 2002, 04:55

The fact is the Germans went round it. Thats why most people belive that static defence is not worth it. Even Napoleon said the side that stays in it's own walls will be defeted

CyberGnu · July 16, 2002, 05:09

Except when you play WarCraft. Is there any other way to defeat the AI hordes?

Chris 62 · July 16, 2002, 05:34

Why do they say it was a failure?

Army group "C" penitrated it in two days during phase II of the battle of France.

The whole project was a waste.

In fact, the problem was simple, the line was not designed as a barrier, but a stop point, which means it was intended to slow an attack, and for local reserves to couterattack and stop a break-through.
Even the French knew an impervious line was immpossible.