Pages: 1 2 3

 

2012-05-16 06:35:45
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State
In the 1930s, France decided to spend a lot of money on construction of defenses against germany (and italy) , namely the Maginot line and the Alpine line.

If, they considered the possibility of Germany flanking the line as a larger thread, would it be possible for them, given the internal political climate at the time (during the depression) to have built a defensive military that could have successful repelled the Germans?

In the other thread, it was said that it would be hard, if not impossible to hold off a invasion instigated by a nazi/soviet government without resulting to similar "war" control over government on the side of the country being invaded. However France poured substantial resources into the Maginot line, perhaps more than Germany put into their invading army. and I'm curious if they had better allocated said resources whether a successful defense would be possible.

discuss.
2012-05-16 06:39:19
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6698|Oklahoma City
An added point I think that needs to be considered here:

Would they have been able to successfully repel the Germans, and still had anything left besides rubble when they were done...
2012-05-16 06:52:39
Chou
Member
+737|6780

HITNRUNXX wrote:

An added point I think that needs to be considered here:

Would they have been able to successfully repel the Germans, and still had anything left besides rubble when they were done...
They knew this and smartly surrendered to preserve all those historical monuments.
2012-05-16 07:12:37
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5574

This did really deserve a new thread?
2012-05-16 07:14:23
HITNRUNXX
Member
+220|6698|Oklahoma City

Chou wrote:

They knew this and smartly surrendered to preserve all those historical monuments.
Yeah, that is my point... "Could" they and "Should" they are two different questions...

In the long run, how did they fare by surrendering compared to some of the places that fought long drawn out battles?
2012-05-16 07:33:33
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

HITNRUNXX wrote:

An added point I think that needs to be considered here:

Would they have been able to successfully repel the Germans, and still had anything left besides rubble when they were done...
Well if they could repel them for long enough, it's definitely possible that other countries could have entered the fight. After all, France did receive military aid from the BEF.
2012-05-16 09:38:47
Karbin
Member
+42|6283
The Maginot line was built, in part, due to the personal lost in the First War. The idea was, given better cover with fixed positions, less personal would be needed on the front line with less effect on the economy.
The area from the Ardens to the English Channel was not covered with the same defences as Belgium was an allie and you don't put up those type of defences on a allie. The Ardens is not passable to tanks, was the thinking of the day.
That said: France had more tanks and men deployed then the Germans.
Problem: the Germans did not operate in a First war manner that the French and British had planned for.
The upper levels for the "Old" French command just could not buy into the idea that warfare had changed from static position fights to mobile warfare.
That left their "Field Army" out of position and in confusion with the Ardens push.

Last edited by Karbin (2012-05-16 09:41:00)

2012-05-16 11:28:26
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6721|Cambridge, England
I find it very difficult to say it was not possible.

Was there anything about the German military that made it impossible to stop?

All France really had to do was tie up enough of the German army long enough for the USSR to mobilize properly and do the ass kicking.
2012-05-16 11:52:18
cdailey2142
Flesh Peddler
+14|5052
France alone could not repel the German military. Between German air power and Armor they were just too powerful a force.
2012-05-16 12:00:47
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

cdailey2142 wrote:

France alone could not repel the German military. Between German air power and Armor they were just too powerful a force.
well, afaik the french tanks were superior to the early German tanks used in those engagements, namely the Panzer III and Panzer II primarily.

Thing is the army's high command did not allocate said tanks correctly.

My point is, if the french didn't invest in a maginot line, but rather invested those resources in a new larger army that would be prepared for a mobile war, would it be possible to stop the german military? This would include the development of a more powerful tank force and a more powerful air force.

A wikipedia source cites the cost of the line at 3 billion francs (in that time's money)... that's no insignificant amount
2012-05-16 12:15:54
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6721|Cambridge, England

cdailey2142 wrote:

France alone could not repel the German military. Between German air power and Armor they were just too powerful a force.
Based on?

After WWI both sides were fairly even I would say. So what happened to make the Germans unbeatable?
2012-05-16 12:16:31
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5462|Ventura, California
I think if the French prepared for a mobile war instead of a deadlock like WW1 then they would have stopped them or at least did a lot of damage.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2012-05-16 12:18:01
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I think if the French prepared for a mobile war instead of a deadlock like WW1 then they would have stopped them or at least did a lot of damage.
that's the hypothesis I'm sort of posing here. Reposting it doesn't really help, cite evidence and shit.
2012-05-16 12:23:14
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6531|Texas - Bigger than France
If France hadn't relied on fixed defenses, it may have not have fallen.  Look at Russia...once they got themselves together...pushed Germany out.

Despite the failure of the Maginot line, Germany decided to use fixed defenses on the Coast...look what happened.

The point is that in WWII is was about initiative.  When you have two forces about equal...the initiative is what solves the problem.  Fixed defenses do not create initiative - it limits your options.
2012-05-16 12:25:11
-Sh1fty-
plundering yee booty
+510|5462|Ventura, California
The French had better tanks than the Germans. Even with the money poured into their stupid M-line.

One French tank takes on 13 German's and wins

I'm sure 3 billion francs could have purchased quite a few extra tanks and AA.
And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.
2012-05-16 12:28:11
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

Pug wrote:

If France hadn't relied on fixed defenses, it may have not have fallen.  Look at Russia...once they got themselves together...pushed Germany out.

Despite the failure of the Maginot line, Germany decided to use fixed defenses on the Coast...look what happened.

The point is that in WWII is was about initiative.  When you have two forces about equal...the initiative is what solves the problem.  Fixed defenses do not create initiative - it limits your options.
Aye but one of the reasons behind the formation of the maginot line was that Germany had a much larger "pool" of military-enlistable males to pull from, so they could field a larger army. The Maginot line was supposed to reduce the amount of personnel required to repel an enemy force. If they went into a conventional military, France might have lacked the manpower to fully develop an army that could repel the germans.
2012-05-16 12:29:45
Cheeky_Ninja06
Member
+52|6721|Cambridge, England
Germany defeated France quicker than Europe defeated Libya..

Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2012-05-16 12:30:20)

2012-05-16 12:30:39
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6531|Texas - Bigger than France
I like my opinion.  Had France gone with an offensive attitude instead of defensive, the manpower issue is just another issue.  I'm talking about air superiority really.
2012-05-16 12:31:38
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6489|so randum
they did spend quite a bit on a navy WHICH WE PROMPTLY SENT TO THE FUCKING OWNZONE
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
2012-05-16 12:37:09
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

FatherTed wrote:

they did spend quite a bit on a navy WHICH WE PROMPTLY SENT TO THE FUCKING OWNZONE
don't mess with the royal navy

yeah Operation Catapult was pretty crazy
2012-05-16 14:26:54
Little BaBy JESUS
m8
+394|6138|'straya
The French had more men, armour and artillery at the beginning of the war. Many also put forward that the French tanks were actually superior to their German counterparts. Also, when Germany invaded Poland, there was not a single Panzer unit defending the French border. If the French had made a proper offensive into Germany at this time, chances are it would have been quite successful. From this position even if they conducted a fighting retreat they would only be giving up German territory.

It was entirely plausible for the French to defend against the Germans, at least for a substantial time (Paris may have fell eventually). However, by relying on static defences, outdated tactics and refusing to launch an offensive beyond their defences, the French put themselves in a position where they could not win. They decided their own fate, the Germans couldn't believe their luck.
2012-05-16 14:33:20
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6760|PNW

If the French had built their wall all the way to the sea through the protests of neighboring pipsqueak nations, the German war machine couldn't have gone around it and may have occupied itself with the eastern front instead. If they wanted through, they'd probably have pummeled holes in it with heavy artillery, but would've had to keep supply lines open through the gaps.

The French would've been better off focusing on cheaper and more useful motorized deterrent.

Karbin wrote:

The area from the Ardens to the English Channel was not covered with the same defences as Belgium was an allie and you don't put up those type of defences on a allie. The Ardens is not passable to tanks, was the thinking of the day..
That's like when a river's going to swell, but you leave a gap in your sandbag wall because it offends your sandbagless neighbor's sensibilities. Take the hit in good relations, extend the wall to the outside of your neighbors' borders or don't build it at all.

-Sh1fty- wrote:

I think if the French prepared for a mobile war instead of a deadlock like WW1 then they would have stopped them or at least did a lot of damage.
I'd think they'd have stopped them entirely, as long as command was competent.
2012-05-16 15:00:44
rdx-fx
...
+955|6580
If their politicans and generals had a clue, perhaps.

They were too fixated on their own ego, and neglected to prepare for the next war.

They had a preview of coming attractions with the Spanish civil war, as this was where Germany "Beta Tested" their tactics and equipment, iirc.
They failed to pay attention.
2012-05-16 15:04:47
Trotskygrad
бля
+354|5988|Vortex Ring State

rdx-fx wrote:

If their politicans and generals had a clue, perhaps.

They were too fixated on their own ego, and neglected to prepare for the next war.

They had a preview of coming attractions with the Spanish civil war, as this was where Germany "Beta Tested" their tactics and equipment, iirc.
They failed to pay attention.
would it have been possible without them attacking germany first?
2012-05-16 17:23:31
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6760|PNW

France wasn't the only one. The United States also neglected to prepare for the next war.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard