WI: Longer Maginot Line

LHB

LHB

One thing that always had me scratching my head about the Maginot Line (before learning about the construction costs) was why the French didn't extend the thing to cover the Belgian border. Considering that was the route the Germans invaded in WWI it always struck me as a huge oversight the main invasion route was effectively uncovered.

What if the French threw sufficient resources at the Line to extend it that far north? What impact does this have when the Nazis go west?
 

Astrodragon

Two reasons.
(1) It would sink - the ground gets steadily wetter :)
(2) Politics - it means the Belgians think they are being abandoned (mind, as the idiot Belgian King was so pro-Germany, that might not have been a bad idea..:p
 
Athelstane

Athelstane

For another thing, it would have cost a whole lot more money. As it was, the Maginot Line cost 3 billion francs, no small investment for the interwar Third Republic.
 

Xavier

1: It would make Brussels explode from rage (F-B were allies until 1936)
2: higher water table makes underground fortifications more expensive
3: The whole point of the Maginot Line was to keep Germany from immediately invading France, giving time to the field army to start a counter offensive, in Belgium.
 
LHB

LHB

Any increase in cost is going to see cuts or increases in revenue somewhere to support it, assuming the will is there to make it stretch all the way to the coast. Assuming the French Republic can scrounge up the cash to make it happen would the expenditure be worth it?
 

Super Missile

LHB said:
One thing that always had me scratching my head about the Maginot Line (before learning about the construction costs) was why the French didn't extend the thing to cover the Belgian border. Considering that was the route the Germans invaded in WWI it always struck me as a huge oversight the main invasion route was effectively uncovered.

What if the French threw sufficient resources at the Line to extend it that far north? What impact does this have when the Nazis go west?
Click to expand...

2 reasons:

1) Such a line would basically say to the Belgians: 'If the Germans attack your nation will fall'
2) Themain point why the Maignot line was built was to force Germany to fight in another country (like Belgium). However, with such a large Maignot line the war would still be taken to French soil.
 

SergeantHeretic

LHB said:
One thing that always had me scratching my head about the Maginot Line (before learning about the construction costs) was why the French didn't extend the thing to cover the Belgian border. Considering that was the route the Germans invaded in WWI it always struck me as a huge oversight the main invasion route was effectively uncovered.

What if the French threw sufficient resources at the Line to extend it that far north? What impact does this have when the Nazis go west?
Click to expand...
The ground extending that far gets too wet and marshy, the line would sink and Belgium would have gotten a little miffy at France abandoning them by implication. of course the king of Belium thought Hilter was a really neat buy anyhow so,....
 

vuun

What if France assists Belgium in extending the Maginot line north along the Belgian-German border?
 
Guildencrantz

Guildencrantz

The only way for this to happen would be if Albert I didn't die in that freak hiking accident. If he lives to see WWII, then you'd see more pre-war Franco-Belgian cooperation. Heck, IIRC, there's a TL somewhere on the board based on that POD.
 

Remicas

vuun said:
What if France assists Belgium in extending the Maginot line north along the Belgian-German border?
Click to expand...

Legal problem would arise, to know who do what with that portion of the fortification. It is something own by the French Republic in Belgium, and by that can be see as a loss of sovereignty by the Belgian government ? A Belgian thing, and Belgium can pay the price to build and maintain it ? A franco-belgian co-ownership ? The troops guarding it would be french, belgian, both ? Can it be defensible on such a large front ?

And then the German could simply passing by the Netherland. In that case there's no Ardennes to break through.
 

SergeantHeretic

Remicas said:
Legal problem would arise, to know who do what with that portion of the fortification. It is something own by the French Republic in Belgium, and by that can be see as a loss of sovereignty by the Belgian government ? A Belgian thing, and Belgium can pay the price to build and maintain it ? A franco-belgian co-ownership ? The troops guarding it would be french, belgian, both ? Can it be defensible on such a large front ?

And then the German could simply passing by the Netherland. In that case there's no Ardennes to break through.
Click to expand...
The essensial problem with the Maginot line cannot be overcome by lengthening it. At its core it is a static defense, and an active offensive military such as Hitler and the Nazis built just has to go far enough around it.

Ergo, Maginot line =FAIL!
 

Parma

SergeantHeretic said:
The essensial problem with the Maginot line cannot be overcome by lengthening it. At its core it is a static defense, and an active offensive military such as Hitler and the Nazis built just has to go far enough around it.

Ergo, Maginot line =FAIL!
Click to expand...

= Wrong thinking, thinking in hint sight.

Which means the Maginot line did exactly what it was build, the whole lline worked perfectly and was never intended to be extend to the Channel coast.
The line was part of the French strategy:
Stop imidiate invasion of France by German troops, like happened in 1870 and 1914.
Force any invasion through Belgium and fight there, on Belgium soil a war of manuvre. With this strategy you prevent the devastation of you own country.
That thing did not worked out a planned is an other reason, but not the Maginot line or that it stoped at the Belgian border.
 

SergeantHeretic

Parma said:
= Wrong thinking, thinking in hint sight.

Which means the Maginot line did exactly what it was build, the whole lline worked perfectly and was never intended to be extend to the Channel coast.
The line was part of the French strategy:
Stop imidiate invasion of France by German troops, like happened in 1870 and 1914.
Force any invasion through Belgium and fight there, on Belgium soil a war of manuvre. With this strategy you prevent the devastation of you own country.
That thing did not worked out a planned is an other reason, but not the Maginot line or that it stoped at the Belgian border.
Click to expand...
You are correct. The line was a perfect defense for the previous war.

Too bad the Germans were not fighting the previous war.
 

Karelian

SergeantHeretic said:
The essensial problem with the Maginot line cannot be overcome by lengthening it. At its core it is a static defense, and an active offensive military such as Hitler and the Nazis built just has to go far enough around it.

Ergo, Maginot line =FAIL!
Click to expand...

Oh please. French military planners were not that stupid. Take a look at topographic map of central Europe, will you?

Maginot Line effectively blocked the only good invasion route directly to mainland France, forcing Germans to go through Belgium. Thus ensuring that Britain would once again be drawn to the war.

Secondly, the static defense was only part of French defense. The good motorized, mechanized and armored formations of French army were very similar to their German equivalents http://france1940.free.fr/toes/teg.html

Now, as the French planners have now effectively forced the enemy to attack along a certain route, they can utilize the narrow battlefield and bring their best forces to Belgian territory and fight the next war there, thus sparing France from devastation that ruined the northeastern territories in the last war.

The idea of silly idiotic cheese-eating surrender monkeys sitting inside their bunkers while the evil Nazi generals race past them in their panzers laughing menaciously is so obviously wrong that I time and time again wonder why it persists in Western historical thinking. Then I see propaganda videos like this and recall why that is the case :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV65XRN1lU0
 

SergeantHeretic

Karelian said:
Oh please. French military planners were not that stupid. Take a look at topographic map of central Europe, will you?

Maginot Line effectively blocked the only good invasion route directly to mainland France, forcing Germans to go through Belgium. Thus ensuring that Britain would once again be drawn to the war.

Secondly, the static defense was only part of French defense. The good motorized, mechanized and armored formations of French army were very similar to their German equivalents http://france1940.free.fr/toes/teg.html

Now, as the French planners have now effectively forced the enemy to attack along a certain route, they can utilize the narrow battlefield and bring their best forces to Belgian territory and fight the next war there, thus sparing France from devastation that ruined the northeastern territories in the last war.

The idea of silly idiotic cheese-eating surrender monkeys sitting inside their bunkers while the evil Nazi generals race past them in their panzers laughing menaciously is so obviously wrong that I time and time again wonder why it persists in Western historical thinking. Then I see propaganda videos like this and recall why that is the case :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV65XRN1lU0
Click to expand...

OK, that's a fair point.

So did it work or not, let's look at the progress of the rest of the war,...
 

Karelian

SergeantHeretic said:
OK, that's a fair point.

So did it work or not, let's look at the progress of the rest of the war,...
Click to expand...

I said nothing about certain buffoon of a supreme commander (who declined to use direct phone line to his HQ) who conviently and just in time moved the forces of the 7e Armée away from the route of the traffic jam that slowly crawled the puny roads of Ardennes towards Sedan...Even good plans can be screwed by bad commanders, nothing odd or new about that.

That says nothing about Battle of France being a foregone conclusion like it is currently often portrayed, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_yyV7X4jEs
 
Last edited:
Michel Van

Michel Van

the reason why Maginot Line was NOT extended at long Belgium is simple:
Belgium had build they own defense line near the town Liege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortified_Position_of_Liège

but planned Fort des Waides and Sougné-Remouchamps were never build
and Fort de Tancrémont and Fort d'Aubin-Neufchâteau were equipped with short range guns, instead long rage guns
Also the belgium King Leopold III believed that the Neutrality Belgium will protect the country against invasion...
 

SergeantHeretic

Karelian said:
I said nothing about certain buffoon of a supreme commander (who declined to use direct phone line to his HQ) who conviently and just in time moved the forces of the 7e Armée away from the route of the traffic jam that slowly crawled the puny roads of Ardennes towards Sedan...Even good plans can be screwed by bad commanders, nothing odd or new about that.

That says nothing about Battle of France being a foregone conclusion like it is currently often portrayed, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r_yyV7X4jEs
Click to expand...

OK, that's another fair point, I cede the argument to you, sir.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top