The Maginot Line: Actually a Good Idea
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- If you enjoyed this video and want to see more made, consider supporting my efforts on Patreon: / historigraph
My old video on the invasion of France in 1940, which is useful for background info to this video: • How did Germany defeat...
Check out my Norway 1940 series: • Norway 1940
► Twitch: / historigraph
► Twitter: / historigraph
►Facebook: / historigraph
►Instagram: / historigraph
►Patreon: / historigraph
►Discord: / discord
►My Gaming Channel: / addaway
Sources:
James Holland, The War in the West - A New History Vol. 1: Germany Ascendant 1939-1941 (kindle edition)
Lloyd Clark, Blitzkrieg: Myth, Reality and Hitler's Lightning War - France, 1940.
Alistair Horne, To Lose a Battle: France 1940.
Charles River Editors, The Maginot Line: The History of the Fortifications that failed to protect France from Nazi Germany during World War II.
Video:
Clips of the Battle of Verdun: • The Barrage of Verdun ...
Clips of the Invasion of France, and of the Maginot Line: • Battlefield S1/E1 - Th...
Clip from the Dad's Army 1972 film, which I purchased from Amazon Instant Video: www.amazon.co....
Music:
“Crypto" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
“Division" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
“Anguish" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
“Prelude and Action" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons...
Is this a new Historigraph video? Less than three weeks after the last one? AND we're going to have another one this month?
I'm as shocked as you are :P
If you want to help me keep increasing my output, consider helping me out: www.patreon.com/historigraph
Historigraph love your videos. Watched every single one and they’re amazing.
Challenging what I've heard and, overall, believe, all my life? Not gonna watch, just gonna reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Historigraph I have to strongly disagree with you. The Germans were utilizing modern tactics, with devastating results. If the Germans had launched a direct assault of the Maginot line, it would've been easily breached.
*ag-reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee*
Historigraph Fortune favors The. Bold
Everyone else: "They will go around the side"
Hearts of Iron players: *Extend the Maginot*
Belgium joins the Axis
@@stephen9381 Belgium joins the Comintern
Everyone gangsta until the ai figures out how paratroopers work
@@spiderduckpig everybody gangsta till ai germany does a succesfull sealion in 1939
spiderduckpig hell I don’t even know
The fact that the German Army _avoided_ the Maginot Line means that it worked exactly as intended. The French were conquered in SPITE of the Line, not because of it.
No the point of the maginot line was to save France from getting raped by Germany. Which obviously didnt work out...
@@botten4187 Well it was part of the plan to stop France from losing to Germany. It was really France's mobile forces that failed.
Blame Belgium for the fall of France
CountArtha you make a valid point, as the maginot line did succeed as a static defense that was never penetrated. But one could argue that the time and resources that went into the maginot line might've been better spent elsewhere. I don't claim to be a historian, there's probably many factors at play here, I'm just playing devil's advocate.
@@michaelfranciotti3900 indeed with the money spent on the line.How many tanks fighters and bombers could have been built instead?
So let me get this straight. Due to the lack of French response to the potential German threat, the king of Belgium broke his alliance with France thus guaranteeing his country's swift fall to the Germans should they choose to act on the threat he perceived. . . Which they of course did. . . Was the King of Belgium at the time an EUIV ai?
i know right? Leopold was so stupid. I mean, germany was at war with france in 1939 and they OBVIOUSLY wouldn't invade them through through the Maginot, so why the fuck didn't he reconsider his foreign policy to reflect this? They had an entire year to prepare and plan during the phony war, how couldn't he have seen that germany was bound to invade Belgium sooner or later to get to france? Honestly, Leopold single handedly damned Europe to have a war that killed dozens of millions of people.
@@doomerbloomer6160 Leopold and the rest of Belgium's high command thought that their army was more then capable of stopping any German attack.
I agree this was very stupid.
And they had king leopold in Congo, Belgian monarchs can be such rotters at times,
Leopold III is considered te worsed king we Belgians had (after Leopold II ofcourse) most people considered Leopold III as a coward and an idiot with his heads in the clouds not wanting to see the real stuff happening
Hoi IV*
The Maginot is that one person on the group project that does all the work while the rest slack off.
Exactly
I hate that. You ask them what you can do, and they say “uh, nothing. Thanks”. But then at the end they always say “WhY yOu nOt hELping?”
And then gets an F
@@cleopatravii2385 Women amiright? jk but women gotta stop with the mixed signals.
perfect way of putting it
Protected by the Maginot Line
Max Planning: +25%
Planning Speed: −25%
With old Grand plan (+30%) that was imbalance thing, French just breaked trough Germans in Rhineland .
@@fkjl4717 As france it will take you years to reasearch even 1 land doctrine bonus
@@jhon-wm5ok i told about my gaming experience, why you dont believe me?
*[builds lvl5 forts on the border plus finishes "Extend the Maginot"; goes for "Superior Firepower" for memes and stuff]*
@@jhon-wm5ok Atleast that one is good
The French military planners didn't believe an attack through the Ardennes was impossible - they believed that any force coming through the Ardennes would be disorganized and take time to form up to attack, giving the French time to move reinforcements into what was a lightly defended area. This was almost what happened, but the more daring German panzer commanders really took a big gamble and pushed through as fast as they could across the Meuse. And it paid off for them big time.
Why didn't they have a plan in place to blow the bridges then? And why ignore the recon reports? If such a plan existed to deal with an Ardennes attack it would seem obvious to believe the reports and send engineers to blow the bridges, whether the enemy is expected to be disorganized or not.
@@MrMattumbo Read the Wiki page on the Battle of Sedan, it's much more complicated than you think. There wasn't just a "gap" in the defences near the Ardennes. The Germans also used pontoon bridges for their mechanized units to cross the Meuse (it's not a wide river). The Luftwaffe was used for artillery, since the panzer artillery units were still winding through the forest roads of the Ardennes.
@@earthenjadis8199 Very true, the panzer corps has a pontoon bridge for every panzer battalion allowing them to cross hundreds of tanks across the river within a few hours combined with the french communication problems by the time news of the 5 wermacth division crossed the arden the small french forces was already completely overrun.
Also, had the original plan of defending inside belgium stood, an attack on the Ardennes would have been way more dangerous, as allied forces could easily envelop you from the west in Belgium and the east from the Maginot Line.
All the meth they were taking probably helped with that.
If you want an idea of the full power of the Maginot Line, take a look at how its "miniature version" contained italian invasion in the southern alps
Absolutely correct
It's nice of you to reply !
@St. Pepe
I don't think we are still incapable to fight, but in wwII we were and that's sure. We even lost against Greece, underestimating them and getting pushed back to mainland Albania. These are sad parts of italian military history.
@ Tech Man Yeah, losing to an enemy that has been past its prime for 2000 years is kind of a bad indicator.
@St. Pepe
You're right, the soldiers were good guys, the leadership was the worst, they mixed up platoons from many divisions making them inefficient, thought that Greece would have surrendered without a fight, and no one thought about the fact that the durres port wasn't big enough to bring in supplies. Just everything was done the wrong way.
We probably shouldn't have participated in the second world war but I'm not sure we did wrong by taking part in the the first.
Watching this in 2020
5:36
I swear I thought you were gonna say
"This approach was made possible by Raid Shadow Legends"
Ha.
Or squarespace
Lol
Or skillshare
For real I was ready to skip forward the skillshare ad
France: Ok, we’ve got this unde-
Belgium: Aight, imma head out.
France: Wa-
*Germany teleports behind Magniot*
Germany: Nothing personal kid.
*nix persönliches kind
AcKcHyUaLLy
Germany: Very personal kiddo.
Omei wa mou shinderu
@@anakinskywalker2587 French: NANI!?
Two memes combined I love it
"Old Guard: Experience gain -25%"
Was not expecting a HOI reference. Kudos.
HoI3!
@@niccolopasqualetti2698 - Great. Now I have to dust off my HOI3 and fire up a game. :-)
now you know where is the problem
I got that reference
The strength of a chain isn't determined by it's strongest part, but by it's weakest.
So true. I am speaking with experience
and thats why this defense didnt work, they were so confident in their predictions that they left a massive hole in it.
So, realistically speaking, the Maginot was a good idea based on several faulty assumptions. Does that make the idea good?
doesnt matter how good an idea is, if its badly implemented, or has a flaw that can circunvent it, then no. for a strategy to be good, it need to work. it didnt. so it was a bad idea.
@@marcosdheleno Did you even watch the video? France's only mistake was to trust Belgium... never Trust Belgium
"Germans have managed to reach Holland!"
"Good God! How'd they manage to do that?"
"They share a border..."
Yes, well, I'm certain that Mr. Mainwaring is merely _testing_ you on your geographic knowledge.
That line cracked me up!
This.
And people get amused when told that "the gap" in the Maginot Lines was not a bug, but a feature.
Not only were Belgian river networks a part of the french defense plan.
But also the very act of forcing the Germans into Belgium and away from a direct and exclusive assault of mainland France, was bound(and I would go as far as to say DESIGNED) to bring in UK and other powers in any Frank-German conflict.
After all, Maginot line can only stand for so long in a war where France is fighting the Germans alone.
On the starting eve of the WW2. Any preposition of Germans beating the allied forces on the continent and then marching right into Paris would have sounded just as inconceivable to any allied strategist, as Germans actually wining the entire ww2 against USSR, US, UK does to us today.
How is it a feature when it was outdated basically at its completion and didn't take into account modern tank tactics
At no point in the entirety of WW2 did the germans ever have an army capable of taking on the Maginot from the front, it was that well designed.
5678sothourn it does not matter when it was built for static ww1 warfare.
It was built to funnel the germans to not directly attack the main french border. Which it did.
Some more things to consider - forts allowed the French to use old farts in combat, since they're not running around. You don't need the same level of fitness for static warfare as for mobile warfare.
A more general point is that forts in WW2 actually worked really well. The forts at Modlin and later Brest-litovsk held up the German advance better than the general army did. The Mannerheim line in Finland positively bled the Soviets white. The Stalin-Line allowed the Red army a few days to fall back and reorganize as the Germans cracked it.
The maginot line was successful on the German border itself, and the forts on the italian border were successful, the forts at Tobruk held up the Germans for months, as did the forts at Sevastopol, and the forts at Leningrad literally held for the whole war.
Fortifications alone won't save you, but neither would tanks alone, or artillery alone. They're part of a general defensive plan. The problem is that the user of forts tends to be the weaker party, who thus tends to lose.
The result being that forts, if attacked, almost always get destroyed eventually.
In addition, forts are a great investment to make in the 1920s, as they take longer to go obsolete than just about anything else. Fortifications in Poland from the 1800s held up the Germans for days, and fortifications in Konigsberg from the 1800s also held up the Russians for days. What other class of military equipment from the 1800s could still be useful the 1940s?
Obviously all the military equipment from the 1850s could kill people in the 1940s, it's just that only fortifications retained their usefulness to the point of being able to hold up a tank column. Line infantry and grapeshot certainly would not have been able to,
Also, as I recall from your video, the French didn’t leave the Ardennes sector undefended, but they didn’t expect the main German advance to go through it.
All excellent points. Well put.
@@mosheshekelwitzki3816 The US Army thought the same thing in 1944 and wound up fighting the Battle of the Bulge. And did not the
Germans attempt essentially the same sweeping westward manuever thru "impenetrable forests" early in WWI?
Selective amnesia? Or just not paying attention?
He did not say they left it undefended. He said they left it underdefended, so defended, but not enough. Which is true.
I can't but agree with your other points though. After all, German Tigers were for long the most fearsome tanks of the WWII. Huge beasts of metal that were so heavy that they were prone to failures, but still where they came, they spreaded fear. The US solved them with sacrificing three Shermans so that the fourth one could get behind the tiger and shoot it at the only place where it was weak.
It's like building a fence around your house and not having it go around the front (Belgium) and the back (Ardennes ).
The Maginot Line was supposed to be the shield, while the French Army was to be the sword. They misused the sword.
The Maginot was very good at what it was built for; allowing the French to defend the border with an incredibly economical use of manpower, forcing Germany to attack through Belgium like last time, a situation that favored the French and British assuming that the Germans didn't somehow do something crazy like send a ton of tanks through the terrible tank country of the Ardennes quickly enough to outrun the majority of the guards.
And misused the shield as well.
@@fristnamelastname5549 the shield did its job........Germany never breached the Maginot line and suffered badly when they attacked it (and these were small attacks to pin it down)
@Jeff Wilkins the Maginot line was used the Germans did attack it during the war but they couldnt get through it....the whole idea wasnt to use the line to break the Germans it was suppose to blunt their attacks along the French border while the whole country mobilized for a war (they assumed it would be another dragged out war of attrition) and force the Germans to attack elsewhere as right behind that line was France's entire manufacturing and mining areas so having armor standing behind it and waiting kinda goes against what it was built to do the armor was to be with the infantry in Belgium (where the fight was to take place far away from French soil)
@@TheAngryXenite Well, according to the vid, if the reports were taken seriously, the tank divisions could have been stopped while in the ardennes.
The failure of the line was really the failure of french generals to punish the German's gamble
They couldn't punish it because at first they didn't know it existed, and later had no idea of the size or location of it. Guderian was dancing around and behind them before they even knew it.
@@georgekosko5124 they did know. There was a crucial moment of time when Rommel over extended by nearly 200 miles and the allies had the opportunity to completely cut off and destroy the invading force, basically severing the momentum before it even started. However the French and British failed to communicate and coordinate their counter attack and stalled, then retreated instead if redoubling their efforts. Had they done so, they would have forced the germans back to their original planned lines of fighting and bleed them dry like intended. There were actually a lot of chances for France and England to beat Germany early on, and France had many advantages over the German military at the time including more men, better vehicles, and better logistics, but their bumblefuck command (who may or may not have been made up of collaborators) consistently capitulated, retreated, and surrendered when they really had no reason to.
@@iannordin5250 Agreed Guderian could have been stopped if Huntziger and other commandant of the French 2nd army defending the Meuse had counter attacked at the right moment instead of ordering hasty retreat when their men were slowing the German advance.
@@iannordin5250 are you moronic? 200 miles?! You mean 20.0 miles?
That was *never* even possible considering how big a *division* is
No, they couldn’t, in the time it took an executive order to reach the front, to attack, the Germans could cross ten km
America: laughs in having 2 oceans
Why do we need a wall on the German Border? Oh that's right we got 2 OCEANS! See France having Bodys of Water always works.
Careful now, everyone says you cannot win a war against the US on their land but that is about as true as people saying Qing was in-invadable. Just takes a civil war and some internal struggles and you could invade anywhere
Zvarrok Zephyr you can’t have a meaningful civil war unless the military has a divided loyalty. The military is staunchly Republican. The Republicans have no reason to start a war when they are already in power and the Democrats, if they were dumb enough to start a war, don’t have any army to fight with.
What are they supposed to do? Seize control of the White House with unarmed peasants? Local police are sufficient to keep them at bay, and the army would be thrilled to have any excuse to defend and obey their commander in chief, as they all swore to do when they took their jobs. The US military is specialized in massacring poorly armed militias. But we have even more tech capable of pacifying civilians without casualties... If you want to call “local protestors violently charge military base and are tear gassed then retreat. Someone died of a heart-attack.” A civil war, then yeah, I guess the US could (and does) experience a civil war. But nobody is going to be able to exploit that.
The only way a civil war could happen is if the Democrats completely reverse their position on the military, or the Republicans lose power and get pissed off enough to start a war. and it’s looking like the Democrats might lose even more power in 2020.
And two weak neighbors.
@acabobie
What's hilarious is that the only other power that could contend with the US would be China and their military doctrine is *not* to invade but to let themselves be invaded and then grind the shit out of the invading army. (See People's War doctrine)
So basically the two powers in the world that are most likely to go to war are also the two that are least likely to actually go to war directly.
France: So Belgium this is our plan, it is absolutely perfect and there is no way the germans can win
Belgium: Sorry France I need to leave because my mom says I need to go play outside I
France: *confused screaming*
France: Ok I go mid. You handle top Belgium.
Belgium: (eating crayons) sorry, Mum says it dinner time. Brb afk.
France: *autistic screeching GG report top AFK surrender at 15.
France: Mom, can we get some geopolitics?
Belgium: We have geopolitics at home.
If only the french played hoi4 they would know to extend the maginot line!
No, they wouldn't know until they reload the previous savings...
Only building forts are a huge mistake in competitive hoi4 MP...
@@kommandanter1980 used to be fine. Now the fortress buster 200% attack fucking broke forts. I have played with u multiple times in MP kommandanter. I used to be able to hold Germany's for at least 2-3 years and sometimes win without falling as France. Not anymore tho. You should not be able to have a positive bonus on up to a lvl 5 fort!
My game as French Commune>
Hitler: Bypass the Maginot!
Me: Extend the Maginot!
But in HOI4 the germans can go monarchist and invade France WITH england
France is just that really unfortunate guy you always feel sorry for. He’s a great, strong guy, but luck, fate, and those around him like to spit on him.
they lost in ww 2,but thats like,THE time they lost,it should always be remembered that WW 1 was fought for geographical reasons in french soil extensively.
from early medieval period till napoleon, france went balls deep and performed well.
iñigo montoya Thank God for your comment, finally a guy who knows History, hat's off 👌🏻
"England is an island, France is not."
@@eamonanderson1304 everything is island
LUL
Belgium: "Let's give neutrality another go, it worked so well last time around!"
You could also mention the crushing succes of the alpine maginot line, which basically destroyed any hope of Italian gains in France, to show how effective this defensive system could be with i'ts flanks secured.
Well the Italian weren t motivated to fight against France, however when they were motivated, they were true lions, espeacially on the eastern front
@@gasupplisson cringe
@Stale Bagelz if you say so
@@gasupplisson I taking a thousand casualties to 9 dudes with 2 machine guns who surrendered once they ran out of munitions, is a bit of an embarassment, no?
best defensive line was never built but was a gift from God called the English Channel
Harry Sinclair,
Tell that line to the Celts: the Romans, Jutes, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans, Danes, French, Dutch, etc. successfully invaded across (what is now called) the English Channel. It was only a great defensive line during WWII because the English controlled the channel with its ships (and its air force to some extent) and were able to deny Germany's Navy from entering it (notwithstanding the occasional submarine attack).
The English Channel also did not prevent the Germans from bombing England intensely during the Battle of Britain. Germany's switch in tactics from bombing military facilities/entities to bombing cites was more influential to England's eventual "success" than just about anything else. England also would have likely still been conquered if Germany had not switched its focus to Russia.
Uh no.. Its celts.
Cegesh,
No, I mean Celts. I believe you are confusing the pronunciation of Celts with the spelling of Celts. Celts is pronounced "kelts" in proper English, although the basketball team pronounces their name "selts".
Reference: Oxford Dictionary: en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/celtic
Schottish? ITS SCOTTISH. CELTS IS CELTS. there is no KELT!
The Greatest defensive line is the ocean
What Holland has to do with all this is beyond me. "The germans have reached Holland. - I would've sworn they would never break through the Maginot line." That's not a very logical response to the Germans reaching Holland..
Never mind the fact that germany is a neighbour of Holland, so 'reaching' it is just a matter of taking one step over the border, making the entire initial statement nonsensical as well.
Dad's Army is a COMEDY....... It is not trying to be serious.
@@alganhar1 there's a difference between not being serious and talking historical nonsense
France was playing Napoleonic Wars at the start of WWI, and WWI at the start of WWII.
Wow! This is actually so well said!
Or you could say that germany was ahead of its time, as everybody thought like France in 1939, except Germany
More like Germany played Napoleonic Wars because Prussian "battle of maneveurs" or "battle of movement" were influenced by Napoleonic era and Nazi Germany got influenced by these Prussian doctrines.
Funny, as every single country thought like that. Even most German generals thought like that, Hitler ordered the blitzkrieg but even he was surprised it worked as well as it did. You can't really prepare for a strategy that hasn't been invented yet, arguably France had more or less the best defense for their budget and with the knowledge and allies they had at that point.
Taserrr: Exactly. Funny thing tho, before De Gaulle became famous, he wrote a book about modernising french army (mechanised division, more importance to aviation, having a professionnal army instead of conscripts etc..)that when unnoticed In France. It is said that germans really liked the book tho and were inspired by it (hard to see what is legend or not) The fact is though, that Blitzkrieg did not defeated the french, but going trough the ardennes did. Basicly, the french and british put their best troops in belgium, knowing that the german would not go throught the maginot line (OBVIOUSLY) and thinking that the ardennes were not driveable. So when the germans went through the ardennes, they smacked into the reserve, which was not prepared and cut the chain of supplies of the best troops of the allies. Everything went to shit mostly after that
Their failure was not from building Maginot line. Their failure was from trusting Belgians. Don't trust Belgian.
Dr. Evil was right
their chocolates have poisons, Lol
Belgian Lives Matter
no the failure was from the german nazi king of england, edward VIII, who gave France defensive plans to the nazi.
never trust the perfidious albion
Dont trust the french or english who led austria get annexed who let germany take chechsovlakia and poland before even doing anything even tho they where allied
Imagine being one of the poor german soldiers that was ordered to directly assault the Maginot line as distraction.
And on why the French kept retreating:
They tried to retreat as little as possible in order to not loose Belgian land so that Belgium would stay in the war.
It lead to them not pulling back far enough and German armored units having gone past some part of the defenses leading to an other retreat not far enough and so on until they were cut off with nowhere to go. French unwillingness to give land to Germany and underestimation of the speed of the Germans repeatedly forced the French to retreat time and time again.
*
ville307*
Perfectly true.
@Reunite The British Empire No he's totally right
ville307 All in all, the rapid German advance killed France. With reports that the Germans hadn’t broke through anywhere and were fighting in Belgium, it’s no wonder the French soldiers hardly fought at supply depots when the Germans arrived. The fact that the Allies ignored to a large part the new German tactics of modern warfare and didn’t change their plans to accommodate for it was a massive blow.
Lets not forget Brits who had only 400 thousand soldiers in France even if France officially requested help while both France and Germany had 3 million! The rest of British army which had around 2 million soldiers were on their island defending it from a very possible alien invasion while their 'ally' France was practically fighting against Germany alone!! Brits tried to land more divisions after fast German advance but it was too late anyway so those divisions got evacuated back without shooting a single bullet but hey they made a 'miracle' in Dunkirk by successfully evacuating all 200,000 British soldiers while failing to evacuate 160,000 French, Polish, and Belgian soldiers and leaving 40,000 behind to the mercy of Germans!! In total 368,491 British soldiers out of 400,000 who were sent to 'help' France got successfully evacuated!! If anybody wonders why France got defeated so easily you just need to look that island country which pretty much gifted France to Germany and made a mad man's dreams true which was the true begining of WW2...
@@ggoddkkiller1342 learn what the brits used those defending troops for ;)
Honestly, France's plan was pretty solid: use the Maginot to pin the bulk of the German army, then combine their forces with the British and Belgians to hold the low countries. The really couldn't know that Germany would go through the Ardennes, or that the Wehrmacht could move into Belgium so quickly
But they did know and chose to ignore the possibility. The plan was terrible and history proves it.
+crush537 No, they didn't. Everyone thought it was impossible to move armor through the Ardennes until Germany did it. I'm not saying France's plan was perfect, or that they didn't make mistakes (someone already pointed out their complete misuse of their superior tanks), but it was still pretty decent
...but...France did know that it was possible; they just dismissed it as too risky. Germany attacked through the Ardennes during the Battle of the Ardennes in 1914 during WWI; they were only stopped by France's own attack through the Ardennes. The 1940 German Army still consisted of more than just Armor units.
Also, "everyone" is inaccurate as Winston Churchill recognized the danger (and reported it). The Germans also thought it was possible before they did it.
Additionally, France ignored allied reconnaissance reports of German tanks traveling through the Ardennes. Focusing some of the air forces onto the traveling columns (which headed towards the French weak spots, even) would have at least potentially slowed them down and given the French time to readjust defensive positions.
French defensive plans made the Ardennes the path of least resistance; it is not like the French kept these plans secret. The French basically forced the Germans to go through the Ardennes for quick results. The re-militarization of the Rhineland also made it much easier to go through the Ardennes without alerting the French to the German intentions.
And that Belgium capitulated after only 18 days of fighting, unlike WWI, where they fought for the entire war, although their country was almost entirely occupied by the Imperial German Army.
The French Army was still trying to re-fight the battles of 1918, with even their tanks and armored doctrine designed for such a battle. Sales Boche! They had the NERVE to rely on speed, maneuver, and air cover rather than the prepared artillery "rolling barrages", followed by the slow-moving armored pillboxes that the French and British tanks largely were, with their infantry dutifully marching behind. Gen. Gamelin didn't even communicate with his Field Army commanders by radio or even telephones, using DISPATCH RIDERS! Whereas Rommel and Guderian each rode in special command cars, loaded to the gills with radios! They also, unlike most of their French counterparts (except for DeGaulle), 'led from the front', and on more than a few occasions were personally involved in firefights!
"ThE gErMaNS!"
"Our treaty, dude. We got this."
"BuT ThE GeRmAnS!!!!!111!!!"
"Dude, the treaty. Chill, we'll send troops.'
"NOOO. StAy AwAY!!1!!1U nOT My FrIeND AnY MorE!!!!!111 YoU No HelP WiTh gerMANs!1!!111!"
Perfect description
We shall watch your career with great interest!
A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one!
Hello there!
Archangel - So, is that Senator Archangel or maybe Darth Archangel?
It's treason then...
Neither is it Darth nor Senator, because I am the Senate!
It's a bit of a shame that you forgot to mention General André-Gaston Prételat's wargame in 1938 that showed the French high command that Ardennes can be penetrated. His prediction of the time needed by the Germans to go through is only longer than what Germans actually did by 3 hours!
In fact, I think Gamelin and French high command's response to this wargame is probably the biggest indicator of why France eventually failed: Gamelin chose to accuse the general of pessimism, bury the exercise result to prevent lower rank panic, and keep insisting that it would take much longer than that so they can easily ignore putting defense in place and count on organizing counterattack instead. Yeah, seriously. Total head in the sand.
The fact that Churchill warned them AFTER this and they still ignored this just shows how idiotic Gamelin and the rest of French high command is, really. Not to mention that they didn't keep any reserve troops back just in case something like this happens and chose to send all their troops into Belgium to attack the German diversionary troop...and we know what happens next: surrounded, Dunkirk, France surrendering.
Also, a bit of a shame you didn't say how much the Gros Ouvrages actually held out against German assault, because I think it just proves how effective those are against actual attacks. Ouvrage Schoenenbourg took multiple hits from 283mm and 420mm guns and being sieged for 3 days and the Germans still can't capture it until the French surrendered. It's pretty damn awesome.
Gamelin was in an incompetent idiot. I have read he did not even have phones at his HQ let alone radio gear. He was trying to fight WWI not WWII with the capabilities of the Napoleonic Wars.
@@OfficialJoosty "Carriérisme". There's a long tradition of high ranking officers/politicians pushing for their personal interests instead of the interest of France. It ultimately leads to them refusing to tolerate/hear criticism of any kind. There's also the fact France was in heavy political turmoil. A non-neglectable part of the population in favor for fascism (in response to communism and because of appealing Nazi propaganda) would later give the Vichy regime its legitimacy.
@Archimedes
For a large part, it has to do with french military doctrine, which had been developed over the whole 19th century (an heir to Napoléon and even Maurice de Saxe). This doctrine had it that the superior factor in an engagement was MORALE over pretty much anything else. Morale alone (well, morale and endless waves of men) was supposed to win battles and wars. You can see this doctrine in action in WWI, when assaults would be mounted regularly, even without a clear objective, just because generals had been taught back at military school that they had to keep their troops pumping, and that a failed attack was better for morale than simply defending.
It wasn't all bonkers of course. It is this doctrine that defeated the prussian doctrine at Verdun. Troops were replaced regularly to keep morale high despite the losses, while Germans thought they should just keep massing up more artillery. The experience of WWI then had an impact on the doctrine, with "reckless offensive" (or "Offensive à outrance") being replaced by "impassable defense" as a way to keep morale high.
So coming back to why Gamelin disregarded the warnings: he thought that (a) moving troops around and admitting there was a menace would reduce troop morale and (b) that that would seriously hamper their ability to actually come on top in engagements. He ran his calculations and thought that, basically, the danger was too little to risk weakening the whole of the army (plus maybe troops would be galvanized again by having to throw the prussians out of the motherland).
No one in the High Command thought the Ardennes were 100% impassable, but actually that in the unlikely event, it would take enough time for them to react and plug the gap. The real surprise was how fast and in how large numbers the germans were able to go through the forest and punch through the frontline.
Historically it has been very common to have the results of war games disregarded or the decisions of umpires overruled to achieve a different outcome when the results are worse for the home team than what the top brass expect they should be.
I can say that France not listening to Churchill is acceptable. Churchill was only known as the fool that got beat at Gallipoli.
The funny thing is we Americans make fun of the French for this oversight yet when the Allies retook the area (under command of US general Eisenhower) they again made the mistake that the Germans would not attack the Ardenne for the same friggen reasons the French did in the 30s and low and behold the Germans attacked and the Battle of the Bulge was the result. If the Germans were not severely weakened at that point in the war they could have conceivably broken through and fractured the allied line into two segments and wreaking absolute havoc possibly even turning the tide of the war. Fortunately they simply didn't have the resources anymore and this was not a realistic possibility. Still the fact that the Allies made the same mistake with the benefit of hindsight always struck me as astoundingly dumb.
There are some major differences...the German army was being pushed back into Germany and the Allies didn't expect a major attack by the Germans in December 1944. They were expecting more resistance to the south where Pattons 3rd Army was plus the weather had turned very bad...which helped the Germans since they no longer owned the sky and the Allies couldn't fly in such weather either. I think most of the allied commanders thought the Germans were just about finished after the mauling they had been taking since June 6-November of that year. The Hitler could send forth an army of 600,000 with 3,600 tanks was a huge surprise at that time.
Erik Johnson "Fortunately they simply didn't have the resources anymore and this was not a realistic possibility." Wouldn't have made any difference. Germany didn't have the resources for a long war *throughout the war* . They caught lucky breaks the first years. When Poland fell in 1939 Germany had shells and ammo for just another week. Assume the French would have maintained the Saar offensive and the British bomber command actually hit Germany with bombing raids. Stalin wouldn't have invaded Poland (he waited for almost three weeks *after* the German invasion) had the French and British fought. Quite feasible Poland might have endured another week in such a scenario. With its stocks of shells and ammo gone Germany's invasion grinds to a halt... in 1939. You can't wage a war without shells and ammo can you?
Germany's war was financed much by pillaging of the countries it conquered and seizing their resources. Even before the war the rapid re-armament nearly bankrupted the German economy and it was only saved thanks to the injection of the gold reserves from Austria in 1938 and Czechoslovakia in 1939. Had war with Poland not started in Sept 1939 and a war economy started Germany would have been in a very bad spot economically with a huge trade deficit and nobody willing to accept the Reichsmark as a currency.
As for the invasion of France in 1940. Even though it was a surprise success several weaknesses had already been discovered in the German armed forces. Despite the invasion being a success and over in 6 weeks, a third (!) of all German vehicles needed repairs and it took quite some time to get them back in working order - which is why Hitler feared Stalin might have seized the opportunity to seize the Romanian oil fields in 1940 (he only took Bessarabia, the northernmost part). No Romanian oil, no Operation Barbarossa in 1941. Simple as that. In 1940 large parts of the German army were still *not* motorized (unlike the British which was fully motorized by this point) and many German divisions simply invaded France by marching on foot. It was also discovered that the rapidly advancing panzer divisions easily outran their logistics and that German logistics forces them to stop their advance time and time again. Since the fall of France had been rapid this problem never gave them much headaches.
When preparing for Operation Barbarossa (invasion of the Soviet Union) it was discovered that Germany had severe shortages in precious material. The stocks of rubber Germany had was about *half* of what they counted was required. As for the German logistics problem. There weren't enough trucks. So they had to seize 700,000 horses(!) throughout Europe to supplement the logistics.
The real shock arrived when Hitler and the German high command discovered that the Soviet Union had much larger stocks of arms they conceived was possible and also had built up a large arms-manufacturing industry without their knowledge in a few years meaning they could churn out several thousands of tanks among other things. Hitler even admitted to Finland's Marshall Mannerheim in a surprise visit to the latter's 75th birthday in 1942, that he had severely underestimated the industrial output and the stock of arms the Soviet Union had.
Seeing as how Operation Barbarossa had failed in the winter of 1941 and the Wehrmacht had already had hundreds of thousands of casualties (dead, missing, wounded) it was clear the Soviet Union had to be decisively defeated in 1942 or not at all. Unfortunately the casualties now meant Germany had a shortage of troops and officers. What to do? Well, they simply graduated the class of 1943 a year earlier so that they were "ready for war" in 1942 already.
By 1943 the allies outproduced the axis by a factor of 2,71 already. However in 1940 it was still a factor of 1,58 in the favor of the allies.
Here's another fact: Expenditure in 1944 dollar prices for ammo (billion of dollars)
1941:
Soviet Union - 8,5 billion
Nazi Germany - 6 billion
Great Britain - 6,5 billion
So the Soviet Union already invested almost 50% more into ammo than Nazi Germany in 1941, whereas Great Britain invested roughly 10% more. By themselves *both* the Soviet Union and Great Britain invested more into ammo.
This is just one of many examples.
Nazi Germany simply lacked the natural resources (save for coal), industrial output, economy and manpower to *ever* be able to win a war of attrition.
""Fortunately they simply didn't have the resources anymore." They never had. In fact this is one of the prime reasons Hitler started the war. He believed (and he had a point) a country of Germany's population didn't have the natural resources and as such was being "held back". The British had their empire. The USSR and USA had tons of resources.
The odds were *firmly against Germany* even *before* the war had started.
Even with Germany weakened, the narrower frontage allowed them to achieve respectable ratios of infantry, tanks and artillery (unlike in Russia, where dilution was the norm). It was also in the Ardennes that the German Panzer arm was shattered- even the Russians didn't achieve that in Operation Bagration.
@@jamesshunt5123 Only issue I have with your post is the use of the term Wermacht for the German Army, the Wermacht was actually the term for all three armed services (Army, Airforce and Navy) combined. The German Army was the Heer..... It is of course an understandable error however, as even many Historions refer to the German Army, incorrectly, as the Wermacht.... and they should be ashamed of themselves!
on the "to do" list in case of a new conflict: Nuke the Ardenne...
there, problem solved
lol
The takeaway from this is... don't assume something is impossible, especially when your reconnaissance teams are saying that it's being done.
French tanks were superior to German tanks too. It was just that France deployed them inefficiently. Also the German army wasn't entirely mechanised. The video clearly demonstrates that depending on others for your defence isn't the best option.
yup, the french army even had more tanks deployed in their army..
Genuinely interested which French tanks were superior?
You mean they were better armoured... that doesn't mean that they are superior.
clangerbasher hahhahaahhh lol french tanks were shit compared to german.
"The Char B1 bis forged a legend of its own during the desperate counter-offensives of May 1940, notably at Stonne. Nearly impregnable, well-armed, it was the nightmare of all German crews during the battle of France. Fortunately for them, poor coordination, no air support, lack of orders, ammunition and fuel prevented full effective use. They saw a second career on the Eastern Front, against the well-armored Russian tanks". www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/france/ww2_French_Tanks.php
France: has a strong plan to foil a German invasion in conjunction with their good friend Belgium for mutual defense.
Leopold: “how about I potentially destroy both our nations?”
The most depressing part is when he said: "And the rest is History". For some reason I thought he was going to keep talking about the invasion 🙁
He did a 2 videos on it they are on his other channel
It's funny how the allies overestimated how difficult crossing the ardennes would be, just to bogged down on the french hedgerows because they underestimated them.
volpedasfuchs - There was a lot of that going on at the time. It seems that the US Navy knew that the US was pushing Japan into an attack, and that Japan had pulled off that stunt before(on the Russkies), and yet, because of racism and xenophobia, didn't think they would try. Much of US politics, to this day, has to do with dealing with the ugly consequences of that action. Read "Infamy" by John Toland - It's been known for a long time that the US Navy and FDR knew about the attack - worry about what public reaction would be led to a massive cover-up and the creation of the OSS(fore-runner of the CIA), and all the trouble that having an outfit like the CIA can cause; and a bad habit of lying to the US public. And someone in that passel of adventurers that liked blowing things up and stabbing people in the back decided that the president had to go. Maybe not such a great idea, after all?
And the irony that the Germans pulled it off TWICE (Ardennes offensive, though that one didn't end in succes, they still achieved absolute surprise and a considerable breakthrough)
David Smith Stop listening to Alex Jones Pearl Harbor wasn't a cover up. The US knew the Japanese were going to attack but not where and when. The idea that the US would let the Japan sink their Battleships for public opinion is Laughably idiotic. Japan attacked multiple US islands, the Philippines, Dutch East Indies, British Hong Kong, and Singapore on December 7th. The US could easily have avoided pearl harbor and still gained the public support it needed for war against Japan from Japan's other actions on December 7th.
And contrary to current belief, losing their battleships was something that was understood as catastrophic
The US rather had lost its carriers at Pearl than their battleships, Carriers at the time still had to prove their worth, Navy doctrine all over the world was focused on Battleships
Even the Japanese put all their efforts in the Yamato Class, only to later realize their mistake (and converting the 3rd Yamato class -Shinano, into a carrier)
volpedasfuchs Everybody underestimated tank divisions at the time -even the Germans. Guderian and other German generals admitted being amazed at their own success in the invasion of France: they had expected to take twice as long as they did to defeat the French forces.
The French were outmaneuvered -- it has happened to every country. As an American who loves WW2 I can say the French fought back admirably. A tragedy of history is the limited information published about the French troops who came back on D-Day and the French resistance who made massive sacrifices to liberate their country. I'm glad to call France our friends -- although we don't alway see eye-to-eye.
I’m American as well and I am always confused on why many people in the US equate France to a weak military or surrender. They were successful in WW1 and helped the US gained independence. Goes to show how some of our citizens listen to every thing they hear
The problem is most people in the US don't like or care about history. Something that I primarily blame on our educational system that labels history as secondary compared to other subjects and heavily abridges and summarizes it.
The French fought incredibly in ww1, they just didn’t in ww2.
When gestapo records were recovered in Paris post war in 1941 (after France had fallen, before it was obvious the Germans would probably lose long term), there were an average of 1,500 reports per DAY from French citizens citing anti German/Nazi activity amongst their fellow French citizens. There are less than that number in total of active French partisans. And a third of France was under happy Vichy rule
Ww1: tick
Ww2: no tick - they may have been justified in seeking accommodation with the reach for self preservation, but they certainly didn’t fight properly
the french were cursed by poor leadership, jsut look at the fleet battle in the north african port. that happened because the french admiral thought it an insult to be talkign with a british captain instead of a fellow admiral. Framnce should have not been reliant on belgium for defense and further built the Line
@@MM-xm5vx France threatened to pull out of NATO so the US got mad, hence the poor military reputation of the french over yere
-"So you tell me the maginot was useless because the germans have gone on the side ?"
-"yes"
-"well tell me if I'm wrong but it's fortification, it's purpose is to force the ennemies to pass somwhere else"
-"yes"
-"then the maginot did fine"
-"..."
Not exactly, the purpose of a fort is to stop advance altogether, either because it physically blocks the way (Maginot) or because the soldiers stationed inside can safely harass the enemy's supply lines should they attempt to 'skip' the fort (most forts through history).
Now the purpose of THIS fortification was as you said, to make them go elsewhere.
But forts in general did not serve this purpose, unless by going elsewhere you include the option of going back to their own country.
@@jabloko992 Forts and fortificationare a bit different diffsense.com/diff/fort/fortification#:~:text=When%20used%20as%20nouns%2C%20fort,strong%20point%2C%20or%20a%20redoubt.
Most fortifications throughout history and even in ancient history especially with Roman tactics were used precisely in the way that the Maginot line was, that is, specifically to employ force multipliers in specific areas of the front so as to force the enemy into a specific area of attack and/or allow you to reduce the total amount of forces along that fortified front and deploy them to more concentrated pockets, allowing you flexibility to conduct 'defeat in detail' operations.
make sense
Thank you ! You have no idea how much i appreciate what you did here. Many times i encounter peoples that go on and on bashing the Maginot line and the French as a whole but refuse to listen anything when i try in vain to explain them how things really were....
To add some details to your great video, the Maginot line didn't refer exclusively to the fortifications at the German border but at ALL the fortifications at the French borders. This included some elements at the Swiss border (just in case Hitler or Mussolini wanted to go through there ) and the defens line on the Italian border (the Alpine line). Work on those defenses actually started in the 20's but because of a lack of fundings it was stopped. It's thanks to André Maginot, French minister of war since 1929, that new fundings were given to resume building the fortifications (hence why his name was given to the line).
As for the fights in Belgium, the French had to commit lots of their best tanks and troops at the battle of Hannut to stop or at least delay long enough the Germans to let the retreating Belgian army to get away and dig in a new defensive line along the dyle river. Plus they also wasted many tanks, vehicles, men and ressources to try to rush into the Netherlands and link with the Dutch at the town of Breda. Unfortunately the Germans arrived there first and the Luftwaffe kept on harrassing the French columns on their way back to Belgium. All this succeeded in convincing Gamelin that the German armies that he met where actually the main offensive directed towards Brussels and down to France. So he ordered all his forces to enter Belgium so he could hold the line in the plains before the Belgian capital, thus weakening the Ardennes sector. He was so convinced about it that he believed the German push into the Ardennes forest was just a diversion, up until the last moment....
Well I give the French a pass for the Spring of 1940, look they had an institutional fear of another war and for good reason, they had their guts shot out in the 1914-18 War. This had more of an effect on French Leadership than anything else, throw in what the German's actually did and well we all know the rest. While they lost the Battle, the Free French when on with the rest to win the war. Where the French really messed up was not putting a couple of cops on a Bridge, it's that institutional memory you see they didn't want to start something and they let the Rhineland stand and that did just what they wanted to avoid in the first place. As they say, hindsight is always 20/20 things were not quite so clear at the time, they just were not willing to put there foot down, nobody was, and that was the real tragedy of the matter 70+ million got to pay for that one.
Well presented, well researched, and done at a good pace. You got a new subscriber.
Internet humour has been heavily influenced by a british-american campain to ridicule the french military force and its history when it's in fact one of the greatest in the world and that by most standards it has had the greatest amount of military victories.
An alias Finally one smart man 👌🏻
Internet memes: France is a loser
Charles Martel, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc, Louis XIV, Napoleon, and others: *Are we a joke to you?*
Alexander Christopher you're so right
It's clear that the jokes were originally meant to be ironic
In most recent history France's military hasn't performed well at all. It makes sense people consider it weak.
The best explanation of the Maginot Line I’ve ever seen for the normal viewer
France: Gaurd everything except there!
Germany: *ITS FREE REALESTATE*
Devastating but necessary.
I am fed up with people thinking the wars were simpler than they were.
The French thinking regarding the Ardennes would be repeated in Dien Bien Phu, where they thought it would be impossible for Vietkong to move artillery through the dense jungle.
I hope they have finally learned their lesson.
"So uh... you guys were just kidding about _'The impenetrable forest'_ thing, right? I mean you extended the Maginot, right?"
_-Britain probably_
Well, if the French had any reserves available they would have made a mockery of the Germans trying to squeeze all their tanks down cart tracks through the trees.
But they didn't have any reserves left because they needed them in Belgium already.
Belgium refused the French extension of the Maginot line.
Belgium failed to defend its own border.
Belgium refused French soldiers on its soil until it was too late.
It's wrong to say that if France had extended the line to its northern coast it would "sell the Belgians out": the Belgians had their chance and made their choice. On the contrary, it would have given the Belgians a place of refuge, and ensured France's ability to defend itself.
The villagers don't live in the castle, but they can take refuge there and continue the fight.
That a part of the Polish Army (and French Army) escaped to Britain, meant they were able to continue the fight. Polish and Czech pilots helped defeat the Germans in the Battle of Britain. Polish, French, Czech and Norwegians fought in the Allied invasion of France (D Day).
France fell in 6 weeks when it need not have fallen at all!
The fall of France made Britain's situation far worse - it gave Germany french ports and airfields from which to attack Britain - and its task far greater than it need have been.
Germany attacked through the Ardenne _three times_ and they _still_ haven't built the damned wall!
Well, I think it's more that forts on plains are pretty useless in modern warfare. Making the northern part of the country unsuited for fortifications. Simply removing gamelin and putting more troops in the ardennes and selling out the dutch would have drastically changed history.
Of course Belgium refused. What kind of sovereign nation will let troops of an other nation operate within it's borders? Germany doing this was the reason britain joined the first world war. Belgium did covertly share intelligence and defence plans with the french however. And it did build it's share of fortifications. Eben-Emael and the other new forts of the Liège fortified position were just as strong as a maginot ouvrage.
What kind of sovereign nation will let troops of an other nation operate within it's borders?
A small nation, a weak nation.
When Italy invaded Ethiopia, Haile Selassie went to the League of Nations to appeal for military assistance from the other great nations.
Yes, after the invasion. That's the point. A small nation letting other countries troops within their borders does in effect give away it's sovereignty. Not to mention it can be a casus belli for an enemy nation.
Ah, I'm up to speed now. I'm not saying Belgium should've admitted the Maginot line, so the reason Belgium refused is of no concern to me.
My point is that France should've continued the line to their northern coast. It would've made a big difference to France, Britain and Belgium -and Germany!
reconaissance plane hq: sand bravo we're reading 70 bogies coming to your sector over
High command: very funny , station, that's a big negative over
2 minutes later: THEY'RE EVERYWHERE!
Thank you so much for this video
I spent so much time arguing with people saying we're stupid and Maginot line was useless. My grandfather was in the Maginot line and was captured just before the Armistice was signed. He would be grateful to you, as much as I am !
By the way, the Maginot Line is in good conservation state and many cannons/turrets are actually still working ! It's very impressive and it's worth the trip if you visit France one day ;)
No offence to your grandfather, but it was stupid and useless. You want the proof, he was captured. You plant a big stone fort in the middle of a field and say "attack me" all the other guy has to do is walk around it. They did not plan for that, the forts got bypassed and encircled without participating in a significant fight. I mean, great, they stopped all the Germans coming through that way, but the Germans planned for that, because they saw the giant concrete fort and said "we should plan for that".
Let me add, God Bless your Grandfather and every French person that fought in the war, specifically the tens of thousands of soldiers that allowed the BEF to regroup in Britain and that formed the Free French. But my love and respect of the French people (I am French Canadian actually) is not going to extend to saying that a bad idea was good. The forts were good, the plan on how to use them was bad and the proof is in WW2 itself. Next we will argue that the Battle of Britain was a good idea for Germany.
@@braddenscott6932 Looks like you didn't learn anything from the video you're commenting on. Its point is precisely to demonstrate that the Maginot line was conceived to funnel the German armies into the low lands (Belgium essentially), where they would be met by the bulk of Allied forces. But this plan was weakened by Belgium going neutral in 1936. Most importantly, the French high command committed two terrible mistakes: the first one was considering the Ardennes as impenetrable, the second one was not reacting quickly and decisively when German tanks were spotted crossing the Ardennes. This attack was a bold and very risky move that could easily have turned to disaster, but took the French high command completely at a loss. This is what made the Blitzkrieg possible, not the Maginot line.
@@braddenscott6932 You, are a fucking idiot who did not even bother finishing the video aren't you? The Maginot Line was not there to stop the Germans, but to force them to attack ELSEWHERE. Which, guess what. THEY DID. The French knew they would attack through Belgium, and were ready to meet the Germans in Belgium (and historically they actually gave the Germans serious fucking problems in Belgium). What the French High Command did NOT expect was a risky narrow thrust through the Ardennes. Oh, a mistake the Americans made only a few years later I might add......
Maginot line can be visited on some parts. That an impressive tour if you like military fortifications.
"Ok guys, we have a powerful, impenetrable defense built between us and germany."
"Ok but what about the forest?"
"Tanks can't go through forest boiiiii"
"Uuuhhhhh sir? Yeah the tanks are going through the forest, should we do something about it?"
"Bullshit, nah lets not do anything"
*gets invaded*
What were they supposed to do? By that point they had already committed their reserves and had nobody else to send.
@
MisdirectedSasha - Its a forest full of pine trees. Pine tree oil is very flammable. Just think California fires. Found out that the wind in Belgium tends to blow from the West which could have fanned any forest fire toward the German military.
@@ab9840 Pine trees.. really? Never visit Ardennes I guess. It rains a lot in the low countries.
@@ab9840 because burning an entire forest that expands over two nations on the off chance of what you assume to be is a feint will be stopped is worth the enormous effort? You have to find all the incendiary bombs you have just to cover enough of an area for this to be effective and accept the huge potential cost of killing tens of thousands of civilians, all in the hope that something so uncontrollable as a fire is going to do exactly what you want. The whole point of the French was to try and not spill enormous amounts of blood close to home again.
French high command might have been many things in 1939-1940, but barbarous and insane are not two of those things.
The French actually did have some units blocking the border at the Ardennes, the problem is that they were reserve troops and not very good quality, so they collapsed almost instantly.
This was an amazing video that really made me rethink about the blitzkrieg into France. Awesome video again!
Also, they did nothing as Germany broke more and more of their treaty obligations. Invading when they remilitarized the Rhineland is what they said they were going to do and then when it happened they did nothing. Which then made Belgium realize France would sell it out.
This is fantastic! I had no idea that France's fall to Germany was largely a diplomatic failing with Belgium and not a failure of military strategy. Thank you for informing this lowly internet pleb.
As a side note, from an alternate history perspective, let's say the French and Belgians doubled down in the face of the reoccupation of the Rhineland and began stationing troops and fortifying positions on the Meuse and the Albert Canal. Your best guess, could the blitz through the Ardennes still be successful assuming that the French again ignored the intel from recon planes?
Taki Inoue Did Nothing Wrong good fucking question.
propably not, because one of the main reson it succseeded was that the french had all their reserves commited to Belgium stopping the german advance. If they would have already duck into fortified belgian position simply waiting for the germans, they would have some good reserve units available for fast deployment. The Germans might still be able to cross the Mars river, but shortly after they would be stopped by reserves because the german advance relied on speed, not combat strenght (the tanks were mostly unsupported for most of the attack). Also a delay in the advance would leed to severe supply issues for the germans considering there was only one good road through the ardennes for supply.
Additionally the french would have been able to simply send the british to defend the ardennes gab, because with a belgian army in fortified possitions they would have had enough forces to hold the Belgian defence line.
If the original Franco-Belgian strategy had been followed the only possible attack vector would be the Ardennes. However if the Allies were already ensconced in their fortifications there would have more reserves generally available and probably more effort to fortify the Ardennes area.
It should be noted the original German plan would have failed as it met the Allies expectations and would met the Allies about where they expected; at the Cyle. One major reason the Germans revised the plan was they fell into Allies hands and the plans needed to be revised.
The remilitarization of the Rhineland occurred in early 1936. The German Wehrmacht was hopelessly outmatched at this time.
It was partly a failing in diplomacy but this is in itself a flaw.
By relying on Belgium to maintain their alliance they were counting on the best case scenario of Belgium being around to allow their troops to get proper positions.
It wasn't wrong to think the Ardennes is a bad position for an attack. Had there been any real concentrated effort to stall the Germans there I think this would have seriously setback the Germans. But assuming there had been a concentrated effort to stop the Germans there would the armies have been able to compete with the far more mobilised and better trained German forces?
At this point in the war if I recall my history right (been a few years) Britain and France were still a ways behind in terms of armament and troops. And given the fairly questionable abilities of the Allies during the phony war it's possible this apprehension was even more justified. You can't always assume your generals are actually going to have brains. We learned this from WW1.
I would also guess this was partly why Czechoslovakia was simply given up without a fight to Germany, supposedly the British Prime minister wanted to buy more time and to justify the war against the Germans to the now very anti-war public.
Due to WW1 utterly ruining a generation it would take a lot of political steps to simply convince the public that a war was necessary to stop the Germans earlier. Had the war started with the march into the Rhineland or the anschluss with Austria or any earlier phase it's hard to say if there would have been any real public support behind it.
Countries are playing the political game as well as keeping an eye on the military motivations of their neighbours so it's a mistake to view warfare as a purely military stage. It's more of a combination of a lot of different motivations by different groups to clobber each other to death.
That's really cool I love those turrets and the way everything looks it's just so awesome looking
Germany: Unfortunately for you history will not see it that way
Okay, I can see what happened here. France built the Maginot Line to cover the border with Germany, assumed the Ardennes were impenetrable and focused squarely on an alliance with Belgium, as it was their buffer against the main German line of attack. But Belgium's own buffer against Germany was the demilitarised Rhineland. And once that was gone, it meant Belgium was completely exposed in the event of war between France and Germany. Because of Allied bungling, Belgium lost its only practical strategic advantage and felt it could no longer trust France if they were just going to do nothing while Germany built its strength back up. There would be no time for the Belgians to mount an effective defence if war broke out, and so they felt that neutrality was the only option left open to them.
But surely one had to take into account that they knew French strategy was to force the enemy to not attack threw their direct border
@Tranhoang Long This argument is solid. Again, in WW1 Belgium was torn apart by the trenches. Imagine you are a policy maker in that era with that experience fresh in mind...
@Tranhoang Long You are not wrong, but again, they would be torn apart anyway even if they stayed neutral. If the alliance was honored, Germany couldn't really wage/declare war.
The Germans lost an awful lot of tanks during the invasion of France. I don't think they had finished replacing them by the time Barbarossa started. The Maginot line also reduced the invasion strength into Russia.
Video about The Mannerheim Line fortifications would be cool
Suomi stronk
mexico stronk
Of course
As I saw somewhere, this line couldnt be effective if USSR would have focused on one point.
@@breizhrudie4757 Still it is an interesting one. Salpa Line would also be interesting!
When Churchill warned them, the French should have prepared their air force to attack the collumns in the Ardennes Forest if an attack would materialise there.
This was an amazing video, 10/10.
In 8th grade I actually wrote a research paper on this topic. I came to the same conclusion.
underrated channel
keep up the good work ^^
Theres like 5 channels like this
Maginot line was conceived for a style of war like 1914. On that case it will work perfectly. However, it was not impenetrable with the tactics and machinery available in 1939. In fact, Maginot line was broken in some points after stukas, panzers and heavy field artillery concentrates in one point.
5:36 This approach was made possible by SkillShare.
You're doing a fantastic job explaining this bit of history. Well done, have an internet point.
"Belgium. A place invented so that Germany and Britain could sort out their differences." - James May
Daaaamn
Actually, it was the result of conflict between Britain and France.
When I rewatch this and come to 5:37 I imagine he say : "This make possible by Skill share, get discount on description box below."
The French gave the German and Italians one big fight sure France was defeated and puppeted but they gave the Italians big casualties and Germany lost a good amount of planes and tanks
You can strike anywhere and win, if that strike is sudden and unexpected.
fortifying your borders with enemies is a good idea? who would've thunk.
0:00 but Holland was never in the territory protected by the maginot line in the first place.....
And the Germans said "Eh, let's take it as well while we're already here.
I think the main reason was to deny the British a place to unload their troops for a counter invasion into Northern Germany, or to attack the forces fighting the french from the back.
Very well explained. I had not heard about the blunder with Leopold wrecking the French planning. Needed more Maginot line all the way around if possible The advance through the Ardenne should have been better examined and planned for. Thats what war games and battle plotting are all about today. The french had already been given a very painful lesson in WW1 I would have thought that All the Cards would have been on their table. Thanks for the lesson
Belgium has left the chat.
One allied bombing raid on the ONE ROAD in the ardennes would have crippeled the german army for years considering most of their modern and best equipped units were stuck on the (at the time) biggest traffic jam of all time without any cover. The german airforce would have not been able to stop a concentrated attack on the ardennes (people tend to consider the Luftwaffe in 1940 as undefitable) by airforce and even small damage would have crippeled the attack (the same road was the only supply line as well). The french really failed spectacually there. But it also shows how uterlly reckless the german army fought considering those huge risks (it would later be one of the reasons they lost).
If the French had bombed the German columns in the Ardennes, we would be sitting here talking about how STUPID the Germans were to run their tanks on tiny roads with no cover. What morons! They invade Poland, shoot a ton of people, and then exhaust themselves on a French rock until the Western Allies just crush them!
@@ifly6 The French weren't doing very well in Belgium either. They may well have needed their reserves to hold off the Germans there, and even that may not have been enough. France was strong on paper, but most of its equipment was either hopelessly obsolete or brand new and untested, while the Germans had a solid year of combat experience to draw on. If France had committed its reserves to the ardennes instead of Belgium, we might remember the German ardennes thrust as a bold feint that weakened the allies in Belgium instead of a perfect Kesselschlacht.
It is a good point, although the French and British air-force were far from up to the task of what you are suggesting in '40. None of the French aircraft were quite a match for the Bf 109, and regardless of that they had smaller numbers, something like 1000 fighters, the vast majority of which were quite inferior. Germans had over 3000 Bf 109s by the end of '40. The French only had something like 100 effective bombers, with different logistical requirements. Most of the good French aircraft were made in Vichy France, not France France. Also debatable how much much damage one bombing run would do to a road like that.
@@MisdirectedSasha To be fair, most of the untested equipment turned out to be pretty good, so no real problems there, the larger problem is that the MAS 36 was vastly outnumbered by rifles from the 1890s (Lebels and Berthiers) that had been re-bored several times by this point, because the standard ammunition had changed more than the rifles. They had the largest tank force in the world, with over 4000, but like half of them were FT17s (look up a picture, they are cute), very few of them were modern or good. Worse they tended to organized with the S35s and such, which means the modern, good tanks had to slow down to work with old, bad tanks. They had D 520s, but not enough to really be useful and their other fighters were quite old, or just not very good (the MS406 record against Bf109s was something like 2:1 against, and the Germans had more in the first place). This all largely stems from political problems within France after WW1.
@@braddenscott6932 I'm going to say that even their "good" tanks like the S35 and B1 weren't actually very good. Both of them had competitive armour and guns, but were crippled by one-man turrets and poor visibility for the crew. Their other issues, like lack of radios and the mechanics not knowing how to fix them, could have been solved, but their fundamental design prevented them from being good as their German contemporaries.
The B1 especially feels unfinished; there are five people in the tank, but the crew layout is so unforgivably bad that they get absolutely no benefit from it.
Other proof of why Maginot Line was actually a good idea: The Gothic and Gustav Lines during the WW2 Italian Campaign. This time there was no going around the lines (don't help the man in charge of the Anzio landing waited long enough to be trapped there), and boy did they do their job.
*Extend the Maginot Line*
Gamelin failed in so many ways. Ignored Churchill"s warnings about the Ardennes, then disbelieved his own reconnaissance. How many lives did his stupidity cost?
When the Germans tried to go through the Maginot Line as part of the invasion, the Line performed exactly as intended and ground the Germans to mincemeat. Part of what spiked the French plans was the audacious use of airborne troops (the fallschirmjaegers) to capture the immense Fort Eban Emael that controlled the Albert Canal crossing. If the Germans had not been successful in neutralizing the fort, then the French may just have had enough time to meet the Wehrmacht along the original defensive line.
Of course, that might have well made it even easier for Guderian's panzers to cut the French army off from France as it originally happened.
HISTORIGRAPH I LOVE YOU
Interesting take and comments on the Maginot Line. The video brought out the complex nature of what happened. It also showed the incompetence of the French general staff. A very complicated subject.
Maginot line was 100% succesful the germans never came through it!
Great video, can you do one on the British Attack of Mers-el-Kébir?
this is something I will definitely cover in the future
i admire your choices of subject and dedication. This will be indeed a tricky one where politic and diplomacy between France and Uk play a huge role. Explaining all the tensions between the two nations prior to the war (with the london naval treaty, foreign policy of Chamberlain, Uk being more leniant toward Germany at the expense of France...) and how it quickly deteriorated with operation dynamo and the fall of France, the distrust, fear and panic that seized Churchill and led him to take desperate measures and all the events that occured during operation Catapult leading to that tragic day, will be indeed a major task.
To explain and understand the tragedy that was Mers el Kebir you will need to cover every sides of the story and do lots of background exposure in a lengthy video.
oOkenzoOo - You will also have to explain Churchill's bad habit of doing bad things to make other countries help make his plans work out; this helps explain the skulduggery he used to rope the US into involvement in both World Wars.
The problem with France was the whole mindset of only defensive action. With all the fortifications - they forgot wars are won by offensive actions not defensive actions. The French lost before the war began because they put all their energy into defense and forgot offense - the defensive mindset allowed Germany to win in 1940 more than anything else.
Speak and it shall happen
I don't mind the ads
I don't mind the buffer
But when the ads buffer
*I suffer*
It’s Pétain not Pètain please ^^
English don't have any accent in their alphabet, try to write it in a phonetic way
Just then call him Phillipe Vichy
@BillyFreeTX Grammat Vichy Lmao
When Germany moved troops into the Rhineland, France should've equally moved troops into Belgium and the Arden in a defensive position under the guise of defending Belgium's sovereignty.
France was changing governments more often than the Parisian whores changed their undergarments. Besides it being the Great Depression, both Belgium and France were preoccupied with internal strife, fearing more a Communist takeover than the Nazis. There were few politicians on both sides that had the guts for such a posture, and little domestic support.
Invasion by France might give the Belgians ideas to ask the Germans for aid.
That wouldnt help much. The problem was in their doctrine. Completely top down command, not a bit of initative.
And their armour was distributed.
It literally did not matter how the French were distributed. They could not muster a defense strong enough to stop an armoured spearhead because of faulty doctrine, and the could not react fast enough to contain a brakethrough because of a faulty chain of command.
The Blitzkrieg could afford flaws in the plans, because the core of the tactic was to move too fast for the enemies to keep up with what was going on, and thus unable to act and exploit any weaknesses in the German plans.
It was primarily an information war, designed to keep the much slower French command structure from ever developing a proper picture of what was going on.
My hoi4 paratroopers would like to disagree with you
For those who think that it is the fault of the Belgians, let's consider what was actually the German plan in 1940.
It is true that the Belgians failed to defend their forts on the border. The capture of Eben Emael was a truly amazing combination of audacity from the German side and incompetence on the Belgian side.
However, it was the plan of German generals to draw as many French soldiers into Belgian territory as possible. That's why they attacked the Netherlands as well. It was not at all required in order to get around the Maginot line. But the Allies overstretched their line as a result.
The biggest mistake was, in fact, to not keep a strategic reserve in France. The garrison of the Maginot line had basically no mobility.
As said in the video, by itself, the Maginot line was not a mistake. It would ensure that Germany would not attack the Eastern frontier of France, and that most of the fighting would happen in Belgium. The Belgians surely can appreciate that kind gesture. But Gamelin was so sure to have succeeded in this strategy, that he didn't consider the possibility of something going wrong. We must understand that the Fall Gelb plan in 1940 was not a copy of the Schlieffen plan implemented in 1914. But it depended on the French generals assuming it was.
Even if Belgium had accepted to let French soldiers enter its territory sooner, they wouldn't have necessarily performed much better. Of course, it helped, because the French army was caught by surprise on the move, but an offensive through the Ardennes would have been possible anyway.
The line wqas a mistake.it cost France way to much money.Plus itr assumed the next war would be fought like the great war.
The grand strategic plan was a mistake, for sure. It didn't work. It doesn't mean that the fortification part was. In fact, Blitzkrieg didn't invalidate all idea of fortifications. Sebastopol or Moscow were tough nuts for the Germans.
It's the mobile part of the plan that was poor. The Maginot line was indeed effective in protecting Northern France, and French generals were almost right about the invasion of Belgium.
Choosing a defensive option as primary strategy was not totally absurd, providing that they kept reserves to support whichever part of the front line that needed it the most.
If the Allies could have bought time, Germany would have been in trouble. At that time, Germany was pretty much isolated. Slovakia was a puppet state. Hungary was opportunistic but not really ready to challenge France or England. Italy wasn't on German's side yet. There was no true friendship between Hitler and Mussolini at that point. Only Germany's victory in Northern France encouraged the Italians to declare war, in order to take some spoil. In the East, USSR had economic agreements, but was not reliable at all. The red army wasn't ready, and that was the main reason why they were still. The other reason was that the Soviets considered both nazi Germany and the western liberal democracy as enemies.
And saying that the Allies were fighting a repetition of the Great War is over-simplification. The Panzer weapon at that time was not the overwhelming Juggernaut depicted in the legend. The firepower of German tanks was not very impressive in comparison with French or British tanks of the same period. But the panzers were precisely were they could be most effective.
Wrong Stanilas great fortifications like the line were obsolete in 1940.It was a tempt to refight the great war.technology made it obsolete.
thunberbolt two Strategy made it irrelevant, not technology itself. Have you heard of the sieges of Sebastopol or Leningrad, or of the triple defensive line the Russians made to welcome operation Zitadel? Of course, it was still possible to break those massive fortifications with enough time and resources, but that wasn't new. In fact, it was always the case. No place is impregnable, if there is no mobile force to support it. It was true during the siege of Constantinople. It was still true at Dien Bien Phu. We often misunderstand the true purpose of walls and trenches. There are not designed to prevent the enemy from passing, but to slow him down, until he's exhausted and possibly renounce, or until we get some reinforcement to counter strike.
During the Great War, trenches seemed so effective, not because theyr were impassible, but because it was impossible to exploit initial success, due to a lack of communication, a deficient line of command and a lack of speed accros the no man's land. To put it simple, it was relatively easy to knock down the first line of trenches with a million shells. But the offensive were sluggish, while the enemy could pour reinforcement at the speed of a train.
In 1940, the French High Command merely underestimated the speed of the attacking force. But it was not that revolutionary. In fact, the Blitzkrieg has roots in ancient strategies. It was not the first time that armies favored speed over other considerations.
Only the atomic bomb made lines of fortifications obsolete, sort of. You don't want to draw a nuclear attack on your population, while your army is safe on the front line.
SArtanislas wrong technology nmade ity obsolete.The geramns could have used the sames tactics they used on eban emal.To destroy the line.Plus airplanes could have by passed it.Then attacked it from the rear.where it de4fenses were weak.You can compare the sieges of sevbestapole on Leningrad.They are two difernt things.Hitler deiced to starve Leningrad out.Sevestapole was destroyed by klarge siege guns.Whuich could have been used to destroy the line to.Allso during the great war the vaunted hindenberg line was destroyed to.Which the French decided to ignore.Al;lso you cant compare dien ben phu.Where the French lost to.Which was made up of trenches and bunkers with the line.One was esily and cheaply made.the other was costly time consuming to make.If the line was so great why is no country using fixed fortifications?Oh wait they are obsolete junk.Lastly because of the line the French didn't have the money to make enough fighters bombers or tanks with radios.Or to modernize their army.
The Maginot itself was fine; it's the attitude that it fostered in the French High Command that was the problem.
So instead of the Maginot Line letting down France, it was actually France that let down the Maginot Line.
More the King of Belgium that Let Down Both.
The 25% max planning bonus is very good
You can just use staff office plan if you need planning speed.
Very good idea
WOW. You're literally the first person i've come across who praises the maginot line. It's a shame really that historians do not give importance to this strategy it deserves.
One more note: France had been traumatized by her losses in the Great War and therefore spurned any idea of attacking Germany while the latter was distracted by the Polish Campaign. Since they acted on this fear it could be said, irony of ironies, that the Maginot Line actually defended Germany better than it defended France.
You can't really blame the Belgians, the French funneled any attack into belgiam and were gonna use their land as the war zone
I mean tbf under the French plan the vast bulk of Belgium would have have been behind a heavily fortified, well prepared river line. But still, I wouldn’t ‘blame’ the Belgians as such - the British and French should have faced down the rhineland
Base on the book"The Victors ". The Rhineland battles.The German cutting across the foothills of the Voges required of all things breaking through the Maginot Line.
The Maginot line built at such great expense had seen no fighting since 1940. But in January 1945 , a part of the line was used for the purpose it was designed for & showed what a superb fortification it was.The US army compose of the 79 INF., 14 ARMRD., elements of the 42nd INF. utilize firing ports , trenches , retractable cannons & other features of the line to the fullest. THEY STOPPED THE GERMANS COLD.