Well, some people do call the French “Cheese eating surrender monkeys”, so you could excuse them for the mistake…
2 Likes
Ah the Maginot line.
Yes, @barry-sanchez - that is an example of social integration not happening.
The German panzers swerved the Maginot Line and killed a lot of other French people instead.
On that, you have a point.
That was 1940.
They actually went through neutral Belgium Pap, history is something you really need to brush up on.
Hanged.
2 Likes
Well, yes (and Luxembourg) but he’s right, in so doing, they swerved the Maginot line. They did kill a lot of French people, and plenty of others, in the process and if Hitler hadn’t been worried about Rommel and Guderian over-stretching their suply lines, Dunkirk would have been one almighty disaster (well, more of a disaster than it actually was).
It’s an interesting case. France, at the time, had what was regarded as the most powerful army in the world. There are many explanations for the German victory but I tend to employ Staw’s threat-rigidity theory when discussing it with my students.
Comprehension is something you need to brush up on.
What part of my post justifies yours?
2 Likes
France was skint, as strong as the French army was they were stupid, the stupidity nearly cost the war.
Not building it fully for offence at a start.
Weather, bravery and luck saved us at Dunkirk.
1 Like
This thread seems to be diversifying nicely. Keep it going like this and before we know it, it’ll be fully integrated.
The Muslims integrated with the Nazis…
Being skint is not an explanation. And the French weren’t stupid, their high command just lacked imagination. They had suffered massive losses in WW1 and anticipated that WW2 was going to go along the same lines. In that sense, the Maginot Line made sense. They had superior manpower and more and better tanks, all sat behind an impenetrable wall. What could go wrong? The British were just as culpable and similarly lacked imagination. We were relying on a long war of attrition in Eastern France to bog down the Germans.
What went wrong was a total change in tactics and an unexpectedly daring approach by the German generals (Fall Gelb). Things went wrong right from the beginning but the situation could have been rescused had the French been able to respond. The treat-rigidity hypothesis helps to explain why, just when the Allies needed quick thinking and rapid response, they actually fatally centralised their control and tightened their system - the antithesis of what was needed. It was a very human response in the face of crisis which we see time and time again.
Trying to fight a more determined, mobile force in the Ardennes?
Not wanting to offend the Belgiums and not fully building the Maginot.
France should have been on the front foot and not building walls as well, a case for attacking Germany once they were arming themselves, what is the point in merely having a defensive army?
Stupid.
You stick to grammar and I’ll stick to history son.
It was all down to the pesky British wasn’t it? After the Germans started defaulting on paying war reparations the French occupied the Ruhr, the good old British told them to stop and defended Germany.
After that France wanted to show that they weren’t the aggressors so built the line as a way of showing Britain that they were only defending themselves thereby hoping to get us on their side. They left Belgium open partly because of their neutrality and partly to bring Belgium into the war should the Germans invade.
la guerre de longue duree
The Maginot Line was built to fulfil several purposes:
- To avoid a surprise attack and to give the French an alarm
- To cover the mobilisation of the French Army (which took between two and three weeks)
- To save manpower (France counted 39 million inhabitants, Germany 70 million)
- 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
- To hold the enemy while the main army could be brought up to reinforce the line
- To show non-aggressive posture, and compel the British to help France if Germany invaded Belgium
- To push Belgium into the war, by leaving it open to an attack from Germany
Just read up on this as I was unaware of the whole situation, I wish I’d done more history at school now!!
1 Like
I am not sure how you build a defensive line for offence, especially as France had no plans to invade Germany as far as I know.
So, in short, the French weren’t stupid.
As ever, Bazza is looking for nice, simple answers when things are far more complex and nuanced.
When we lose against Spurs on Saturday, he’ll revert to his ‘it’s all Puel’s fault’ line again.
What good what of occupying Germany done?
As Churchill said the battle was lost years before concerning Germany and their plans, the Maginot Line was drawn up as a defensive gesture as the French couldn’t afford another war, the bellends lock their army in and left a big hole at the top for not wanting to offend a neutral nation, you may not get that in a history lesson but its the truth.
France as I said was skint, could see the danger in Germany and their numbers but screwed it all up, the British didn’t want (quite rightly) fully commit to a continental war and the US (quite rightly) was isolationist so the wall was half arsed built. The arrogance in thinking the Germans couldn’t and wouldn’t go through the Ardennes is outstanding.
Why did I know it would be you that read offence one way when it meant the other? Read the context and the history of what I am saying?
Offence to the Belgium’s not an offensive, Belgium was neutral.
I knew it would be you.
The French were stupid.
What was the point of the wall/line?
Did it succeed?
Why didn’t they fully build it?
The fall of France is the most embarrassing episode in France’s military history, 6 weeks was it?
Stupid, inept and short sighted, you’ll find them in many books regarding that.