Talk:Maginot Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maginot Line article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

You sure about the Germans punching through the line, Tim? If I recall correctly, the second prong of the German attack was through the Ardennes forest, and I think the rough terrain was considered to be its own defense. I remember reading a very detailed article about the construction of the line and it said that it did not fall but rather surrendered after the rest of France did, and it mentioned nothing about the Germans breaking through.

What I wrote is what I recall from reading General Bradley's memoirs and Liddell Hart's history. The attack was through the Ardennes, and researching it just now, apparently the Maginot Line was to the south of the Ardennes. So I will restore the old version of this page - Tim

Contents

[edit] Error in the opening

I know nothing about the maginot line, so not confident to edit it myself. However, the opening reads: "which France constructed along its borders with Germany and with Italy in the wake of World War II."

Now, "wake of World War II" means AFTER WWII, right? Isn't it meant to say wake of WWI? It seems to have been built between WWI and WWII best I can tell.

[edit] Schizophrenic article

On the one hand this article acknowledge that the line actually did the job it was intended to do: entice an attack trough Belgium, and on the other hand it tries to explain us how, though successfully fulling its objectives, it was still a failure. I removed the unsupported failure claims, especially the claim that French strategy did not use the Line correctly. If someone can provide a source how the French authorities believed to be invincible thanks to the line, we could put that back.


[edit] Cost of construction

The current text says: "The main construction was largely completed by 1935 at a cost of around 3 billion francs."

Where does this figure come from?

In The Second World War John Keegan writes (p.61): "The original vote for the Maginot Line was for 3000 million francs; by 1935, 7000 million had been spent, one-fifth of the year-on-year military budget, but only 87 miles of fortification had been completed."

Alistair Horne in "To Lose a Battle" quotes those figures as well, i suspect the person who originally wrote 3 billion was using the amount approved, and not the final cost (3000 million is the same as 3 billion) Nyenyec 18:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Magniot Line metaphor...

I'm not sure the description of the Magniot Line metaphor in the article is appropriate. In most cases, the context where it is used is for something like missile defence, where it might defend against the specific threat it was intended for but is easily evaded by a more flexible attacker. --Robert Merkel 07:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that the Line was constructed in the wake of WW I?

[edit] Name

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but why was it called the Maginot Line? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

...named after French minister of defense André Maginot)... It was Andre Maginot who finally convinced the government to invest in the scheme. Maginot was another veteran of WW I who became France's Minister of Veteran Affairs and then Minister of War (1928–1931).--216.174.135.50 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error on the Map

The Maginot Line was essentially from the Swiss border ot the Luxembourg border. It is described as such in the article. However, the diagram provided shows in extending right to the English Channel.

"When Belgium abrogated the treaty in 1936 and declared neutrality, the Maginot Line was quickly extended along the Franco-Belgian border, but not to the standard of the rest of the Line."Thmars10 00:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Book reference

I vote to remove the section titled "Referenced in A Separate Peace". It should be in the article for that book, if anywhere. A5 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Version?

Anyone know what the WP process and/or policy is for adding cross-references within the text to another WP language version? A much more comprehensive entry for Ligne Maginot is being developed in the French version of WP, with additional illustrations, etc. It seems silly to just copy all their images here. JXM 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (PS Yes, I know it's already linked in the sidebar!]

[edit] German invasion

Text from "german invasion": the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger” and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avoid and Saarbrücken achieving penetrations in several locations

Except for the "Ouvrage of Ferté", germans have never penetrated the Maginot Line with normals conditions of combat. The north of the Maginot Line had been taken by germans when it was desert by the french army. Martial BACQUET 10:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Organization of the line

I'm editing a new section about the organization of the line. If you see errors or anything else, please tell me here, but do not remove directly, except for spelling or grammar errors. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial75 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Grammar in "Purpose of the Line"

Is it just me, or does the grammar in the section entitled "Purpose of the Line" seem incorrect? As I don't really known how it should be, so I am not going to change it. Specifically this "To push the enemy to circumvent it while passing by Switzerland or Belgium." and this "To save the forces (France counted 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000)." -Wil101 —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|67.101.127.167 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by 67.101.127.167 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] I really hate when historians debate the necessity of the line

From my prespective the line was not a waste in any sense. The French had limited amount of troops and as such had to decide where to place them. A fortified line like the Maginot reduces the number of troops needed to defend an area. By sealing off your direct border with germany it reduces their options for planned attacks. As such the french did what any country did mass their mobile forces together in 2 massive armies with a 3rd one organized during the phony war. The 1st and 2nd Armies were to advance through belguim as fast as possible in preset defensive lines. The 7th Army was to advance to cover southern Netherlands with the BEF providing imediate support to the belgiums. As such a gap existed in the ardennese area. Since that area was deemed to be difficult to traverse with mobile forces it was given the 3rd Army which was a predomintaly cavalary army. That happened to be in the center of the line. The germans knew what was going to happen when they invaded when the french and bef setup to meet the germans in the fall of 39. It ended up getting post ponned and both forces settled down and as such gave the germans perfect intellangence. The key thing about the whole invasion was both sides knew what each side was going to do so it came down to who could exploit each other the best. Thats what the Maginot line did. It made sure France knew exactly where the Germans were going to attack. --Mihsfbstadium 17:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, except that it didn't, and thus the french did not know, and their plan played into German hands. Your entire line of reasoning is invalid. DMorpheus 21:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually you didnt understand what I said. The French knew they would be forced to go through Belguim. Hence they put their best troops to meet them. They did not put any armor of any major size behind the Magiot and hence they were able to mass a nice force. I think the only problem was trying to save the Dutch with the 7th Army but alas they probally did not think paratroopers would have played a part. --Mihsfbstadium 19:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


First of all I want to apologize about my English, I'm French. I completly agree with Mihsfbstadium. I work in a French association called AALMA. We restore ouvrages (works) of the Maginot Line and we organize visits to the people. I wrote a great part of this article and I've never said that the line was useless or ineffective, I just didn't want to erase other edits about this subject.
If you are able to read French, I invite you to read our website over this question: www.lignemaginot.com you will see historical proofs.
Cordialy Martial BACQUET 14:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
"Both sides knew what each side was going to do" ???? I'm sorry, I see little evidence that the French Army knew the Germans would attempt to pass through the Ardennes and fight on the other side. I will look at the French site, I can read a little, but looking at the French dispositions I don't see how they match any foreknowledge of German intentions.
I agree that the line made a lot of sense as an economy-of-force measure; that is, it allowed the French Army to place mininal forces in secondary or well-fortified sectors so that the best assets could be concentrated where they were most needed. But they did not in fact concentrate them where they were most needed. DMorpheus 15:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay this is a little project you can do. Take a map of the present border of Germany, France, and the Low Countries. Now rotate it 90 degrees so the North Sea and Switzerland is on the left and right sides of the map. Now the fortified line pretty much ran from Luxembourg to Switzerland. That means you are limited to just the Belgium Border to go through. As such if you were to base any force where would you place it at. There is one more thing you should also remember is that the ardennese forest area is really hilly and military commanders felt that with a poor road network and the such it would be pointless to cover it with tons of tanks and felt that time would be on their side if anybody would invade that region. So the French did what any intellegant commander would do put thier force in a position to stop the most likely invasion route. Its was not the Strategic operations of the french that doomed them but rather the fact that the germans were operating on a very fast response time versus the french. Thats because the commanders were using encrypted radios to broadcast notes back and forth along with just using radios in the majority of the tanks. The french were still using older technology like the telegraph and the like that is slow and as a result could not adapt fast enough for the changing enviroment. --Mihsfbstadium 00:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


It's what I wrote on this article:
The Maginot Line was built to fulfill several purposes:
-To avoid a surprise attack and to give alarm.
-To cover the mobilization of the French Army (which took between 2 and 3 weeks).
-To save the forces (France counted 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000).
-To protect Alsace and Lorraine (returned to France in 1918) and their industrial basin.
-To be used as a basis for a counter-offensive.
-To push the enemy to circumvent it while passing by Switzerland or Belgium.

Martial BACQUET 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The Maginot Line doesn't seem like like it was a waste at all. It allowed the French to concentrate resources where they were most needed: on the border of the Low Countries. The Germans never managed to break the Maginot Line in force; indeed, it seems they really didn't even try. It forced them, as Mr. Bacquet said, to go through Belgium. Unfortunately, Belgium remained neutral until they were invaded, they were unprepared but put up a valiant fight, but the Belgian army was stabbed in the back by their king who surrendered them to the Germans, without their government's approval. Then the French were alone--only a few UK divisions to help them--and those UK divisions were quickly encircled by Rommel's armor at Dunkirk and had to be evacuated or face annihilation. The Low Country border was teeming with German armor--and, on top of that, some Germans managed to sneak through the Ardennes, which was thought to impassable. The French were outnumbered and outflanked by a massive concentration of overwhelming force...they were a country of 40 million to the German 80 million...and compared to Germany, they weren't bent on building an army of world conquest. Their military did all they could, they gave a good account of themselves...and then the French got stabbed in the back by Petain and Darlan. The Maginot Line was successful because if it wasn't there, the Germans would have gone through Belgium AND through Alsace-Lorraine and the Ardennes...the French would have been attacked all along their entire northeastern border. They would have had to spread their resources, thin as they were, even thinner, which would have certainly doomed them. In retrospect, perhaps, if the Maginot Line was longer, if the Belgians hadn't capitulated, and the UK had a few more divisions to spare, they might have had something of a chance. As it was, they were doomed by a combination of bad luck, the Belgian king, Rommel's drive to the sea, and lack of manpower on a scale compared to Germany.Katana0182 05:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] France LOST!

Any interpretation of the Maginot Line has to take account of the catastrophic French loss. The Maginot Line was a component of a French strategy, which failed.

France never lost, Otherwise we would be Germans. The French strategy has completed is 5 missions. (cf. article) Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a ridiculous bias to defend the Maginot Line as a qualified success, just because you have an antiquarian interest in it.

What's my interest? To spend a lot of money to restore historical true?

The Maginot Line was not "designed" to channel a German invasion thru the Ardennes. That was a surprise.

If you read more documents over this subjet you will see that it was completely scheduled. Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

The German invasion of France in the first World War had come through Belgium, precisely because that's where the necessary rail network was. The Low Countries are a highway to France, offering no natural obstacles, and a good highway and rail network. The Germans would prefer Belgium and the Netherlands in all circumstances, to move very large armies; to think otherwise is silly.

Maginot Line was conceived after the first World War. Belgium was a neutral country witch will become an Allied in case of Germany prefer Belgium. Martial BACQUET 20:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe, the Maginot Line could have been an element in a rational and successful French strategy for World War II, but this is history, not counterfactual fantasy.

It is perfectly sensible to point out that the Maginot Line could economize on the forces needed to defend France. To say that the Maginot Line made anything whatsoever "impossible" with regard to a German conquest of France, is unsupported. BruceW07 23:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)