Why does history say the Maginot line was a failure?

[faded glory]

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]

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]

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

[KrazyHorse]

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.

[Dinner]

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]

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]

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

[orange]

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]

I thought that was the good thing about being Swiss.

[orange]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.