Analogy for the The Maginot Line........! (WW2, war, greatest, bomb)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Given that the French may have failed to see the future of the airplane in war, isn't the Maginot Line like a defender in basketball setting up for the charge, and the opponent flying over him for the dunk?
The Maginot Line worked. They just stopped the wall in front of Belgium. The Germans never penetrated the wall. Planes at the time would make little impact on it, bombing accuracy was so bad in WW2.
The British saw the value of the heavy bomber and made them. The Germans did not make a 4 engined heavy bomber.
The Maginot Line worked. They just stopped the wall in front of Belgium. The Germans never penetrated the wall. Planes at the time would make little impact on it. Bombing accuracy was so bad in WW2.
The British saw the value of the heavy bomber and made them. The Germans did not make a 4 engined heavy bomber.
The Germans also turned the guns around facing into France as they prepared for the invasion into Germany. This is one reason why the allied troops moved into Germany via the more northern forested areas. But for the French while it worked in part, it still failed as they'd ended it too soon. Given that Belgium was used as a route of invasion in WW1, they should have known.
Given that the French may have failed to see the future of the airplane in war, isn't he Maginot Line like a defender in basketball setting up for the charge, and the opponent flying over him for the dunk?
Actually the French had some rather noteworthy aircraft prior to the Germany invasion. It wasn't for a lack of vision but rather slowness of production that kept France of fielding its most modern aircraft.
Actually the French had some rather noteworthy aircraft prior to the Germany invasion. It wasn't for a lack of vision but rather slowness of production that kept France of fielding its most modern aircraft.
Either way, the German offensive wasn't so much a dunk as opposed to a "pick & roll."
Another factor in how quickly France fell was none other than WW1. It was nearly all fought on French soil, and along with soldiers many civilians near the lines were killed or forced away as well. They took the brunt of the war and nearly all of the ruin. Not only were there fewer Frenchman there to fight, but if it looked like they would lose, and be occupied, why fight what is likely a useless open battle and lay ruin to more of the homeland for nothing? Its been said that France didn't fight simply because it was just still tired. One of the areas where the greatest losses of WW1 took place was taken in less than fifteen minutes with no resistace.
When the Mets debuted in 1962 their shortstop was Elio Chacon, a player from Venezuela who spoke not a word of English. In center was the veteran Richie Asburn in his final season as a player.
On short fly balls to left center, Ashburn would charge in yelling "I got it! I got it!" only to be smashed into by Chacon with the ball dropping away. After this had happened several times, Ashburn asked a bilingual teammate for help and learned that "I got it" in Spanish was "Yo la tengo."
So on the next short fly to left center, Asburn charged in yelling "Yo la tengo! Yo la tengo!" And Chacon promptly put on the brakes and turned out of the way.
Then Asburn was slammed into by leftfielder Frank Thomas who spoke no Spanish.
Another factor in how quickly France fell was none other than WW1. It was nearly all fought on French soil, and along with soldiers many civilians near the lines were killed or forced away as well. They took the brunt of the war and nearly all of the ruin.
Which raises and interesting point, nationalism only goes so far and millions of French soldiers remember getting a rawer deal from their own generals than the Germans. The idea that the fighting during the First World War was on behalf of others than the common man in the trench wasn't lost on a lot of folks as WWII was rolling around - they were wrong - but I can certainly understand such reasoning.
After the signing of the German-Soviet non aggression treaty, Europe's communist and socialist parties derided the war as being just another squabble between capitalist. Many on the right admired the Nazi's ability to bring about a recovery from the Great Depression, order and a greater sense of national pride (See Petain, Weygand). So what was the great motivation to redo the WWI especially after Germany's rapid advance and the same dithering incompetance of the French high command as it has displayed in the first war.
The Germans also turned the guns around facing into France as they prepared for the invasion into Germany. This is one reason why the allied troops moved into Germany via the more northern forested areas. But for the French while it worked in part, it still failed as they'd ended it too soon. Given that Belgium was used as a route of invasion in WW1, they should have known.
The main invasion did NOT come through Belgium. It came through Luxembourg. And the French DID expect the main invasion to come through Belgium which is why they moved their best forces into Belgium.
The Maginot Line worked exactly as the French had planned. It forced the Germans to invade through the Low Countries instead of directly across the Franco-German border. The French wanted to fight on Belgian soil, not French soil, so they planned to funnel the Germans through Belgium. The flaw in the plan was the French left the Ardennes region weakly defended. The French refused to believe that a large scale German invasion was possible in that sector.
When the Allies moved their best forces into Belgium, they trapped themselves into a pocket. Once the German Panzers broke through the French lines from Luxembourg further south, the Germans turned west and encircled the Allied forces trapped in the pocket.
As was said earlier it did exactly what it was supposed to do. Within the microcosm of France in the interwar years it seemed like a great idea. The issue with the defenses not being extended had to do with the alliance between Belgium and France that called for them to fight in Belgium against a German attack. Essentially the "line" was an anvil with the hammer coming out of Belgium. When Belgium abbrogated the treaty following France's refusal to confront Germany over the remilitarization of the Rhineland, the "line" was extended all the way to the coast, but nowhere near the scale of the main line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.