Again- easy to SAY stuff- but there is zero evidence that France "Planned" for Germany to simply come in thru the low countries. French defenses were NOT massed at the belgian border waiting to repulse German attack.Just worng. the French fiully expectaed and p0lanned for teh gemrans attacking through Belgium. they did noyt build massive fortications behind Belguim as it was ally and part of their defense plans.
um, yet again- you state a mere opinion- totally unsupported by any fact- French forces DID NOT STOP GERMAN ADVANCE - ergo- they were inadequate to the task.NO the French had enough araments and manpower to stop the Germans. The Franch amry fought reasonable well in General.
There msiatkes were s (a) trategic planning, the revised dyle pl;an was poor, no resevres, (b) extremely poor command and control system. (c) doctrine.
They did fight Very well--- they simply lacked the ability to respond to the mass of germany mobility and air power. Period.
more mythology supported by a handful of photos showing german forces using horses- the German army did not rely in horses... they Added some horses to an otherwise mechanized advance- it wasn't the Horses dropping the bombs and it wasn't the horses pulling all those 88s)For which the German army was often relying on horses.
Autobahns have zero military use Moving large amunt of troops, supplies, industrial goods by road is a massively slowly on ineffecient compared to rail.
. Mass transit was railways, which Germany had under invested in.
Highways were a waste of resoures.
So- clearly you have not read Eisenhower's analysis of German manufacturing resilience- he attributed Germany's primary resource in keeping its war effort going to the Autobahns.
You are simply wrong about them being slower than rail- travel by car or truck in France- whose roadways turned to mud in a light rain was slower than french rail.... but paved limited access highway systems are remarkably effective at moving materiel- not only trucks full of men- but more importantly in moving materials and manpower in manufacturing.
Because of what he saw in germany, Eisenhower felt that a modern superhighway system was SO crucial to a modern nation's defense that he enacted the 20 year infrastructure project of the US interstate highway system, which he sold to congress as a DEFENSE expense.
THe Conservative estimate of the interstate highway system is that it TRIPLED the GDP of the United States- thereby proving unequivocally that transport by truck is vastly more conducive to economic development than railway systems can ever hope to be.
In fact- in France Germany HAD to take the time to load tanks on and off of rail cars to move a division just 30 miles because the roads were so often impassable to heavy tanks. In germany, they could simply DRIVE there in ANY weather.
Sorry- reliance on rail made rail roads and rail yards easy targets for disrupting logistics. Its part of how germany won against france- and how the allies pushed Germany out of france.
Really? So it was DESIGNED to Never fire any of its hundreds of cannons at an enemy?It did exatcly waght it was designed to do.
If that is the case, then WHY did they put cannons in it at all?
They could have put wooden cannons in there and it would have been just as effective in NOT shooting at Germans.
It was built to DEFEND France from GERMANY- It didn't.
Germany still took france.
Moreover- even if the german army had wanted to come across the maginot line- the Maginot could not have stopped them.
Simple paratroopers could have dropped in behind the line, and attacked the line from the side its cannons COULD NOT BE TURNED TO FACE- infiltrated the bunkers and taken out quarter mile wide stretch of the line thru which the whole german army could have poured with little to no loses.
Time and a gain thru history frontier walls have fallen in the exact same way- put ONE little hole in the line, and you have divided your enemies forces and they are unable to form a line of battle because you are on both sides of their flimsy, thin, and immovable wall.
Sorry- Your entire argument is that all those resources were invested in a fortification that was purposely intended to do nothing whatsoever. That it never was intended to fire a single shell. But there is no way you can explain how this was supposed to save France from invasion thru inaction.