Nope. Marshy soil, not enough money, no reason to cut Belgium off. Also impossible because of negative influence on infrastructure and industry of the region.
What's the point of building fortifications everywhere except where you got attacked the last time around?
They were actually attacked through Belgium the last time round...
I would agree that extending the Maginot Line to the Channel would be very difficult. The region tend to flood and is most marshy Thus making any effort to build fortifications very expensive. In addition a lot of Frances industry is located in this region which would be disrupted by any effort to fortify it.
However some additional work should hadve been done. Also in view of the fact that Germany swept through the area in the First World War someone should have question the wisdom od having so much of France's industry that close to the border.
Because they won last time around, but lost the Franco-Prussian war? Forcing the Germans to come via Belgium means that the British are going to join the war on the French side - by no means guaranteed if the Germans come straight across the Rhine like they did in 1870.What's the point of building fortifications everywhere except where you got attacked the last time around?
Not a lot you can do about that - the industry is there because that's where the coal and iron ore was. They certainly encouraged growth elsewhere, but there is only so much you can do and uprooting industry wholesale makes the Maginot line look cheap.However some additional work should hadve been done. Also in view of the fact that Germany swept through the area in the First World War someone should have question the wisdom od having so much of France's industry that close to the border.
That's what the DLMs were there for. The issue is that they were committed in the far north by the Dyle-Breda plan. The French fought the Germans more or less to a halt at Gembloux with their mobile forces - the problem is that they were committed in the wrong place, and had to withdraw to avoid being cut off. The real problem for the French was that the battle moved much faster than their command system could keep up with.What the french failed to do was have there armies be more mobile so when the attack happened they could get to where they needed to be to stop advances.
No reason to cut Belgium off from what? Why would there be negative influence on infrastructure and industry of the region?Nope. Marshy soil, not enough money, no reason to cut Belgium off. Also impossible because of negative influence on infrastructure and industry of the region.
No reason to cut Belgium off from what? Why would there be negative influence on infrastructure and industry of the region?
Yet the only serious attack on the line was a German success.The area in NOT floody and the area is NOT full of marshes. I know the area quite well, I just have to look from my window!
The main feature of the whole area is: flat, flat, flat.
Have a look at a map. You can split the area in three parts
- Dunkerque to Maubeuge: flat area. Hightest hill: 147m.
- Maubeuge to Sedan: hills, forests, some deep ravines, few roads. Quite easy to defend
To defend the area between Maubeuge and Sedan you don't need that a huge investement as you can use the Meuse as a natural AT line. You just need entrenched artillery (the fact is that a single working battery from the line can stop any attack). As for the maginot line don't forget that the forts themselves were top of the art in 1939 with crack troops. A single 75mm turred was able to stop any attack (up to 30 shells per minute per turret during days).
The problem was to not have linked the French and Belgium forts. A strong line along the Meuse on the Sedan - Namur - Liege line would have been an excellent choice.
Yet the only serious attack on the line was a German success.
Yet the only serious attack on the line was a German success.
Digging to the extent of Maginot line will necessarily cause displacement of industry, economic activity and infrastructure in densely populated region of Northeast France.
As for the soil, to respond to this, I read somewhere (was it Alistair Horne?) that the ground in the region was not able to withstand the fortification of the kind built in the Maginot line.
Simply not true, the lines held until AFTER the armistice. It was also shown the bigger forts could have withstand an atomic blast, those were amazing examples of architecture.