WI Maginot line to the Channel

Initial plan for the line was, AFAIK, to build up to the Channel but the Belgians didn't like having their frontier lined with fortresses and the French agreed to not build all the way if the Belgians built their fortresses on their territory instead.
However, Belgian fortresses were not up to the same standards.

So, is it feasible and what'd happen if the French just built their network all the way to Dunkerque?
 
. . . However, Belgian fortresses were not up to the same standards. . .
Or . . .

a French politician privately and respectfully meets with his or her Belgian counterpart and basically says, there is a lot of political pressure for a defense. However, I'd much rather have a jointly staffed defense line between Belgium and Germany.

------------------------------------------

Even if they build the original line, it indirectly protects Belgium because then the Germans have no reason to march through Belgium.
 

Deleted member 94680

Or . . .

Even if they build the original line, it indirectly protects Belgium because then the Germans have no reason to march through Belgium.

Or... it effectively says to the Belgian public “you’re on your own, suckers” and it makes a neutral or even pro-German Belgium that much more likely. This is the OTL reason the Maginot was never extended to the Channel and absent of a differing PoD, it is the reason why it is unlikely that this could happen here.
 
Or . . .

a French politician privately and respectfully meets with his or her Belgian counterpart and basically says, there is a lot of political pressure for a defense. However, I'd much rather have a jointly staffed defense line between Belgium and Germany.

------------------------------------------

Even if they build the original line, it indirectly protects Belgium because then the Germans have no reason to march through Belgium.

This was seriously considered in the 1920s, but never had a chance in the political environment of the era. However had the Belgians recognized the situation and declared war on Germany in September or October 1939 the French army could have reinforced them and made it a reality. Even in January 1940 when the Melichin Incident occurred it was not to late for joint planning and preparation.
 
Initial plan for the line was, AFAIK, to build up to the Channel but the Belgians didn't like having their frontier lined with fortresses and the French agreed to not build all the way if the Belgians built their fortresses on their territory instead.
However, Belgian fortresses were not up to the same standards.

So, is it feasible and what'd happen if the French just built their network all the way to Dunkerque?

Mistaken premise. The Belgians actually would have preferred the French to prolong the Maginot line along their border. This would have been a good deterrent for Germany to invade Belgium. But the French strategy was about making sure the Germans did go through Belgium...
 
A lot of the ground along the Belgian French border near to the coast wasnt suitable to build heavy fortifications on. It was low lying with a high water table.
 
A lot of the ground along the Belgian French border near to the coast wasnt suitable to build heavy fortifications on. It was low lying with a high water table.

I'm contemplating how many tens of thousands of pilings driven into the muck it would take to float a concrete earthscraper fort above ground.
 
I'm contemplating how many tens of thousands of pilings driven into the muck it would take to float a concrete earthscraper fort above ground.
I think the issue of high water table was more about making the underground bomb proof parts deep enough to be 1940s bombproof. The Brialmont forts around Liege built in the 1880s-90s were good enough above ground for the 1914, or 1940, but their underground parts were too shallow to last against the German 11 inch siege guns in 1914. Some Maginot forts were used a nuclear bomb shelters after the war.
 
"Given the failings of the French army, did the high command actually err by not pursuing a protective barrier along the entire frontier? In other words, would France have been better off had the Maginot Line extended north to the English Channel? This question is rarely asked by historians given the fiscal, engineering, and diplomatic obstacles to this approach. Above all, as Gamelin and others argued, it would have been enormously expensive-—double or triple the costs of the extant Maginot Line costs-—due primarily to the high water table of the northern frontier. France could have afforded it, but only at the sacrifice of other defense and government programs. Although Germany's invasion and rapid victory focuses history on that threat, French strategists in the intrawar period faced an array of challenges that encouraged heavy expenditures in other areas, especially the navy. Given the immense time required for constructing such a barrier, a decision would have been necessary before the Hitler threat crystallized in the mid-1930s. Ultimately, it is unknowable if a continuous Maginot Line would have succeeded better at holding off the Germans. A barrier, even one that would have been the most impressive in history, probably alone could not be expected to hold off an imaginative and determined foe such as the Germans. The successful local deterrence and defense of the Maginot Line in Lorraine has to be weighed against the existence of appealing alternative approaches into France. One should not necessarily expect the same level of effectiveness for a strategic defense across the entire eastern frontier, especially since the existence of such an obstacle would have served to foster an even more defensive mindset among the French public and politicians. Thus the high command appears correct to have derided the creation of a "Great Wall of France.'"

Bren L. Sterling, Do Good Fences Make Good Neigihbors? What History Teaches Us about Strategic Barriers and International Security (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2009), pp. 245-6 https://books.google.com/books?id=XHOTNUZ-9EAC&pg=PA245 https://books.google.com/books?id=XHOTNUZ-9EAC&pg=PA246
 
"Given the failings of the French army, did the high command actually err by not pursuing a protective barrier along the entire frontier? In other words, would France have been better off had the Maginot Line extended north to the English Channel? This question is rarely asked by historians

But it has been asked. Back in the late 1960s John Young did a analysis on the CORF project costs vs field combat units or aircraft. Kemp touches on the question in his book. Theres others.

given the fiscal, engineering, and diplomatic obstacles to this approach. Above all, as Gamelin and others argued, it would have been enormously expensive-—double or triple the costs of the extant Maginot Line costs-—due primarily to the high water table of the northern frontier. France could have afforded it, but only at the sacrifice of other defense and government programs. Although Germany's invasion and rapid victory focuses history on that threat, French strategists in the intrawar period faced an array of challenges that encouraged heavy expenditures in other areas, especially the navy. Given the immense time required for constructing such a barrier, a decision would have been necessary before the Hitler threat crystallized in the mid-1930s.

The decision for the CORF project, the fortresses between Longwy & Strasberg was taken & budgeted between 1928 & 1932. Construction was 90% by the Czech crisis & the fortresses officially combat ready then. Heres the trick, when the CORF fortress system was proposed in 1928 it was still hoped the Belgians could be convinced to build a similar system & integrate their defense with France. Unfortunately a variety of events split the Belgians into neutrality. Their defense was never integrated into a unified system with France, which contributed significantly to the catastrophe of 1940.

So yes he decision needs to be made before 1934.
 
If the Maginot line is built all the way to the sea it will be more expensive obviously. However the Germans will not be able to do their trick of sending an army through the Ardenns forest. Just covering the Ardenns forest area with the Maginot line will change everything.

The war against France will be longer, and there is a chance that the German industry and economy collapses because without occupied France the German industry and economy is smaller.

If the war carries on for too long then there may be a coup against Hitler.

If the war carries on for too long then Stalin might attack a weak Germany.
 
Top