Talk:Maginot Line/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Initial post

You sure about the Germans punching through the line, Tim? If I recall correctly, the second prong of the German attack was through the Ardennes forest, and I think the rough terrain was considered to be its own defense. I remember reading a very detailed article about the construction of the line and it said that it did not fall but rather surrendered after the rest of France did, and it mentioned nothing about the Germans breaking through.

What I wrote is what I recall from reading General Bradley's memoirs and Liddell Hart's history. The attack was through the Ardennes, and researching it just now, apparently the Maginot Line was to the south of the Ardennes. So I will restore the old version of this page - Tim

Hello, and sorry for my poor level of english. You are right. Moreover : it happened the same thing in 1944 in the Ardennes but fortunately with another strenght ratio. There is an non-neligible amount of mistakes (or: received ideas) there. Same years ago, I gently corrected a lot of them, but it has been removed (it was considered as "vadalism"...?). I have to say that I made a lot of the documents some of you are citing ;-) ! I had other things to do (now too), maybe one day I will come back but it will again take me some other precious days to correct the things. However the article is better now than some years before. One remark : I (briefly) looked at the other langages wikipages, and it seems that they all contains less mistakes than the english one. I don't know why. Is it for some passional reasons ? In the world, Maginot line is a synonym of success, strength and resistance (for those interested in history). In the world, excepted maybe in USA, England and France... Why ? That is maybe another debate. I have not a lot of thime but I want to give you the answer : Germans (and Italian) violently attacked the Maginot Line in June 1940 : to proof to the world that nobody can resist to their military power. But the Maginot troops (desobeyed to the orders and) decided to resist. Because of that, they are considered among firsts resistance fighters of France. Surprisingly, they even defeated the German and Italian armies. They were considered undefeated, and they were "delivered" to the Germans by order of the French government (one week after the Armitice). There is a lot of things to say, but you understood easily why the Germans (and others) did not advertise on that. Well after the fighting, the Germans made ​​a fake movie where they attack the Maginot line (used in "Zieg im Westen" - 1941). This film is still used on TV as a historical source... I hope one day I'll have time again to help you to upgrade this wiki. Long live wikipedia:-) !

PS : there is an historian specialist of the Maginot line who has decided to release a factual ("neutral") book. He did as comic to make it more enjoyable to read (he has worked with most of the people quoted in the article). I'm sure you will find a lot of answers there : HISTORY OF THE MAGINOT LINE - MARC HALTER.

Error in the opening

I know nothing about the maginot line, so not confident to edit it myself. However, the opening reads: "which France constructed along its borders with Germany and with Italy in the wake of World War II."

Now, "wake of World War II" means AFTER WWII, right? Isn't it meant to say wake of WWI? It seems to have been built between WWI and WWII best I can tell.

A greater account of the Maginot Line can be found in Alistair Horne's book To Lose A Battle France 1940,as well as an in depth look at the events surrounding it

Cheers- David P Shirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.135.172 (talk) 19:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Schizophrenic article

On the one hand this article acknowledge that the line actually did the job it was intended to do: entice an attack trough Belgium, and on the other hand it tries to explain us how, though successfully fulling its objectives, it was still a failure. I removed the unsupported failure claims, especially the claim that French strategy did not use the Line correctly. If someone can provide a source how the French authorities believed to be invincible thanks to the line, we could put that back.

Name

Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but why was it called the Maginot Line? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:20, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

...named after French minister of defense André Maginot)... It was Andre Maginot who finally convinced the government to invest in the scheme. Maginot was another veteran of WW I who became France's Minister of Veteran Affairs and then Minister of War (1928–1931).--216.174.135.50 15:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Error on the Map

The Maginot Line was essentially from the Swiss border ot the Luxembourg border. It is described as such in the article. However, the diagram provided shows in extending right to the English Channel.

"When Belgium abrogated the treaty in 1936 and declared neutrality, the Maginot Line was quickly extended along the Franco-Belgian border, but not to the standard of the rest of the Line."Thmars10 00:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Book reference

I vote to remove the section titled "Referenced in A Separate Peace". It should be in the article for that book, if anywhere. A5 17:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

French Version?

Anyone know what the WP process and/or policy is for adding cross-references within the text to another WP language version? A much more comprehensive entry for Ligne Maginot is being developed in the French version of WP, with additional illustrations, etc. It seems silly to just copy all their images here. JXM 02:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (PS Yes, I know it's already linked in the sidebar!]

German invasion

Text from "german invasion":

the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger” and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avoid and Saarbrücken achieving penetrations in several locations

Except for the "Ouvrage of Ferté", germans have never penetrated the Maginot Line with normals conditions of combat. The north of the Maginot Line had been taken by germans when it was desert by the french army. Martial BACQUET 10:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Organization of the line

I'm editing a new section about the organization of the line. If you see errors or anything else, please tell me here, but do not remove directly, except for spelling or grammar errors. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martial75 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Grammar in "Purpose of the Line"

Is it just me, or does the grammar in the section entitled "Purpose of the Line" seem incorrect? As I don't really known how it should be, so I am not going to change it. Specifically this "To push the enemy to circumvent it while passing by Switzerland or Belgium." and this "To save the forces (France counted 39,000,000 inhabitants, Germany 70,000,000)." -Wil101 —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages|67.101.127.167 00:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)]] comment was added by 67.101.127.167 (talk) 00:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

Co-ordinates

It would be very helpful if someone could add the map co-ordinates to the articles about the individual installations to place them in context. Cheers Bikeroo (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

External link

I would like to propose this link as I find it interesting and useful.

It includes a well-done map of the maginot line in its Alsacion and Lorraine part with a path for a travel by bike. As well geneeral information about the Maginot Line and pictures worth to see.

Hope you approve it and enjoy:

http://www.europebybike.org/travels_by_bike_in_europe/maginot-line/maginot-line.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.249.39.3 (talk) 08:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Resistance of Line to Schwere Gustav?

Hello guys. I am a fortifications enthusist from the U.S. AS the maginot line was probably the most powerful line of fortifications ever built, at least on a large scale, I have always been fascinated by it. However, I have recently come to the conclusion that it's resistance capabilites became obscelescent upon the introduction of the German 80 cm "Schwere Gustav", which was able to fire a 7.1 tonn shell which could penetrate at least 7 meters of concrete. I imagine that one hit would have been enough to destroy any maginot line block. Even given the fact that the block's dispersion would have made them fairly difficult targets, I can't imagine that it would take more than a day or two to demolish an entire ourage, and this could be done from a range of 32 km, outside the range of most retaliatory artillery. If anyone has any objections to my opinions, I want to hear them! I want to be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean (talk • contribs) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

They wouldn't have had enough of them to have a decisive impact. In WWI the artillery got bigger and bigger in the hope of breaking the stalement. Didn't happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.31.248 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that the Gustav would make a terrible impact on the Maginot Line. I don't know if it was made for entirely destroying the line or just punch a hole in it for the divisions to pass through. However, if it was used extensively, I'm sure RAF and the french airforce would've prioritized its destruction. But the "Sichelschnitt" plan rendered it obsolete. Had it been ready in time, I'm sure that it could've been used for drawing large french forces from the north in order to contain any breakthrough by convincing the french that the main assault would come from due east rather than north and northeast. --Nwinther (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, the 800 mm guns weren't ready until 1941 at best (actual firing batteries never deployed until early 1942), so they are a bit irrelevant. Had even one or two been available I would think they'd have been able to destroy a short section of line fairly easily, but if that effort took even a couple days, it would have been enough time for the French to identify the attack zone and begin the movement of reserve units to the threatened sector. I don't think the allied air forces could have seriously threatened these guns in 1940 though. It took them a while to become effective at actually destroying or interdicting anything. All in all I think these super-guns must be considered real white elephants. DMorpheus (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleted paragraphs on the significance of the line

I see that someone deleted the two paragraphs on the significance of the Line, and the perhaps unfair bad press it has received through the years. I didn't write the deleted paragraphs, but I recognize the idea as coming from the Osprey Publishing book written by William Allcorn titled The Maginot Line 1928-45 (Paperback). If I can find my copy of the book I'll restore the deleted paragraphs, but I may not be able to put my hands on my copy. Perhaps another editor has the book and wants to put the paragraphs back with proper attribution. pmcyclist (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Armoured cloches section should be expanded

The content from all the individual main article links to stub articles in the Maginot Line#Armoured cloches section really should be merged into this section to expand it. -- œ^™ 05:52, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)

Copied from Acroterion's talkpage so it can be seen here

I note that you amended the Armoured Cloches section of Maginot Line. The previous edit, however, was rather problematical; whilst it may have been in good faith, it was no improvement and certain changes were bordering on vandalism, including persistently changing "In [year]" to "during [year]". Other established editors have been reverting these edits, and I was going though similar edits.

I had a long thought about what to do to your edits to the Armoured Cloches section, since you may not have noticed all the disruptive changes just made to it. I also checked WP:EMBED to see what the problem was with the bulletted list you changed to prose. I agree that it looked messy, but I think that was in great part due to the use of {{main}} tags; I see no reason why they should not be as emboldened links as in the New York City example of "Appropriate use".

I also note that the last unanswered comment on the Talk:Maginot Line was that the four stubby individual Cloches articles should be merged into the Armoured cloches section, in which case neither bullet pointed lists nor a single prose paragraph would be appropriate.

So, following that example, and wishing to revert that previous edit, I have undone the whole block, but within the Armoured Cloches section, I:

• Changed the {{main}} tags for emboldened links,
• Retained your corrections of Guettor fusil-mitrailleur, armes mixtes and the LG cloche's small hole,

I also changed the few text instances of "Maginot line" to "Maginot Line", but didn't tackle the WP:ENGVAR inconsistencies (defence / defense and armoured / armored). That's for another night.

I won't be upset if you reapply the prose status, but I'd also be interested on your views about incorporating the individual cloche articles. Yes, I'm watching this page now. Tim PF (talk) 05:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I thought I'd take a stab at starting an overhaul of the article, which sorely needs it, but I wasn't very satisfied with how it looked after I'd edited it. It was late and I wasn't at my best. I'd like to move it farther into the prose direction and get it better organized and referenced. I've written most of the articles on individual Maginot positions and fortified sectors and have the appropriate reference materials. While the individual cloche articles are pretty stubby, I can expand them with what I have on hand, and I'd rather all the links in the articles on individual positions went to articles than to subsections in the main article. That said, there's a good argument for consolidating the cloches into one daughter article and adding in material on the retractable turret types, using the format you describe above. The main article rambles a bit, and needs a haircut in my opinion, so it can focus on the big picture and leave the details to subsidiary articles. There's a lot that should be added that simply isn't there or is glanced over: comparisons with foreign systems, French politics, a greater examination of pre-war French defense strategy, incorporation of lessons learned in WWI, garrison life, units, organization ... Acroterion _(talk) 05:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not sure what you mean by "using the format you describe above", but I don't really want to get too involved with this article. It's not that I'm disinterested in the history of the World War (and especially some of the things like this that occurred between parts I and II), but my priority is with Railways and countering vandalism, so I've now used the {{RailGauge}} template for the narrow-gauge railway bit in the article.

All this talk on your talk page, but shouldn't much of this be either on the Talk:Maginot Line or somewhere within Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history? Tim PF (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Maginot Line Article

Copied from Acroterion's talkpage so it can be seen here

Acroterion,

Article: Maginot Line

I did minor fixing of the article, like there were some double spacing, converted measurements from one measurement to another. Did the Infobox again. I think it's not far from "B-Class" just needs more information and sources/references. I left the WikiProject France unassessed because the WikiProject Military History assessment may change in the future. Adamdaley (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi both, this is on my watchlist due to reasons explained in the "Maginot Line (Armoured Cloches)" section above, so I assume, Adam, that you approve of the way we left it.

There's one minor problem with your {{convert}}s which I haven't time to deal with tonight (but could do so in the next few days). Changing "20 to 25 kilometers" to "{{convert|20|km|mi}} to {{convert|25|km|mi}}" gives "20 kilometres (12 mi) to 25 kilometres (16 mi)", whilst "{{convert|20|to|25|km|mi|sp=us}}" gives "20 to 25 kilometers (12 to 16 mi)".

Which brings me to another outstanding problem, as I already commented at Talk:Maginot Line#English variety. I see both WP:AmE and WP:BrE, but no WP:AuE (or even WP:OzE). Tim PF (talk) 02:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good job, the article needs some attention. An article that size should have 75-100 references, and to my mind it's unfocused. My plan is to do a major overhaul and tighten it up, splitting off daughter articles on equipment and history where appropriate. I've been sneaking up on it by writing articles on the individual ouvrages (107 articles), then the sectors (19 so far) [1], and I'm putting together a notion of how it might be reorganized. It really should be a featured article, which is my long-term goal. I've got enough sources, particularly the five-volume compendium by Mary, Hohnandiel and Sicard, but given its size - 1200 pages - (and my command of French) I keep discovering new things as I write.

Feel free to offer a critique of the article and your ideas on improvement on the article's talkpage. To my mind it fails B1 badly, is so-so on B2, passes B3 but isn't really structured well, fails B4 (too "listy", needs to be prosified and to root out some translation boo-boos from French) and is fine on B5. The big thing is B1, which is a long slog through sources. Any help you care to give would be welcome. I was considering reworking some sections in userspace to have some freedom to try things out without goofing up the article in the meantime; you (both) and any other interested editors would be welcome to work on those drafts, as I don't want this to become some sort of personal walled garden. I figure I'll start once I get all the sectors done, which will take a few more weeks. The SFs Savoie and Alpes-Maritimes will take a while, since they are so scattered in geography.

As for ENGVAR, it should be in British English. However, being American, writing that way doesn't come naturally to me, so corrections will always be welcome. And I always have trouble with our ridiculously complex convert templates. Acroterion _(talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about your logic for being in British English, but I'm happy to go along with that. Being a native speaker, I'll try and work through it at some time in the next few weeks, and I can also sort out the complex convert templates if Adam doesn't do it first.

Just checking one of the ouvrage sub-articles at random, Ouvrage Ferme Chappy has "June 21", "25 June" and "27 June", so should we also go for British and French DMY style dates throughout? Tim PF (talk) 03:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

My logic is no more than the arbitrary idea that American, Canadian, or Australian usage seems incongruous, and that we should use a "European" style of speech. Yes, I've tried to do DMY, but occasionally fail. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for being late to the discussion to the changes I made on the above named article. I can and do understand the points User:Tim PF and User:Acroterion have pointed out. By all means if you or anyone knows a better way to do something for example with what User:Tim PF brought up was the conversion thing in one particular area of the article. You can see that my "conversion" of certain distances (in the article) is limited to that one "conversion" command by wikipedia. I do not know many other commands only one's that I've picked up along the way, like simple ones. The distance conversion I wanted to make it more than just one format of distance, hence why I put kilometres and miles. If both of you came across in another form of tone in your messages, I would not be replying, and I get a sense of trying to be polite and helpfulness from both of you. On the WikiProject Military History, I have already made a couple of relations on wikipedia (english version), are two co-ordinators User:Ian Rose and User:AustralianRupert. They will also be willing to give advice on any article within the WikiProject Military History. I am sure they would be friendly and be helpful if asked on their talkpages. Anything you both have or willing to need to have another person look at an article, feel free to ask me on my talkpage with the article link. I do appreciate the feedback I have received be to me it is also constructive and positive. Adamdaley (talk) 06:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

You are welcome to the party. I've revised all the {{convert}} tags within the "Organization" [sic] section, but left spellings as US for now. I think that some of this discussion should move to the article's talk page (and possibly the Military History's talk page), as there are a few other watchers there, and perhaps Ian and Rupert might want to join in too. Tim PF (talk) 11:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't mind if this conversation is put onto Maginot Line Discussion page under its own heading. Another two people I just thought of after reading User:Tim PF's last comment here is User:Nick-D he is an administrator and has helped me in the past with the WikiProject Military History articles. He is approachable and would give you his honest opinion if asked. I've had little contact with User:Parsecboy who is an administrator and "Lead Coordinator" of the WikiProject Miliary History. He seems to be also approachable if asked for his opinion. So there is four other users besides the three of us in this conversation, can make a bigger discussion if they wish to do so. Adamdaley (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Other Users for Feedback

Tim PF,

Article: Maginot Line

I have let the following users, administrators and/or coordinators know about our conversation. Just waiting for their reply. Adamdaley (talk) 01:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ian Rose
• AustralianRupert
• Parsecboy
• Nick-D

Conversions from metric

This article is clearly sourced in metric units, so its units of measurement should be metric first with non-metric conversions according to WP:UNITS. Adamdaley and I have been working on using the {{convert}} tag, but I have a query.

In the Organization section, we currently have: "Infantry Reserve Shelters (9): These were found between 500 and 1,000 meters (1,600 and 3,300 feet) behind of the principal line of resistance." The original had "between 500 and 1000 meters (~.3-.6 miles)", but I wonder if "yards" would be better (ie "between 500 and 1,000 meters (550 and 1,090 yards)")?

What would British or American military have used back then? Is there any guidance in the Military History project about this or other such measurements? Tim PF (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Basically, I do understand what User:Tim PF is saying. To me this is a hard decision to make, since there are so many articles which have distances in them besides the Maginot Line article. I feel that only in certain types of areas "yards" maybe used for example the NFL playing field. As for kilometres and miles, North America uses miles, as for alot of other countries like England (or Britain), Australia, possibly New Zealand etc. would use kilometres now. We need to find out from somewhere reliable what the distances were used during World War II. Yes it is frustrating when someone is trying to complete an article and there is something they really don't know they become frustrated. It does take alot of time to find the right information and reference it. As for your query User:Tim PF, I feel inclined to use metres and miles. Adamdaley (talk) 15:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure old WW2 films use yards for artillery range, which is the sort of thing I was thinking about. Tim PF (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I'd say that in cases where the distance was below a mile, that yards would have been used for large distances (e.g like the distance of a cricket pitch, a running race, or an artillery shot), but that feet would have been used for medium distances (e.g. like a person's height, or the length of a ship), and finally inches for small distances (e.g. like the length of a ruler, the size of a recruit's chest, the size of an artillery round, etc.). This is just my opinion, though, so if possible it would be best to take a look at contemporary sources relating to the subject, to see how they deal with this issue. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cost of construction

The current text says: "The main construction was largely completed by 1935 at a cost of around 3 billion francs."

Where does this figure come from?

In The Second World War John Keegan writes (p.61): "The original vote for the Maginot Line was for 3000 million francs; by 1935, 7000 million had been spent, one-fifth of the year-on-year military budget, but only 87 miles of fortification had been completed."

Alistair Horne in "To Lose a Battle" quotes those figures as well, i suspect the person who originally wrote 3 billion was using the amount approved, and not the final cost (3000 million is the same as 3 billion) Nyenyec 18:38, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note that there are two main uses of the number "1 billion":

1,000,000,000 is the most common usage of one billion (often referred to as the "American billion"); 1,000,000,000,000 is an alternative usage of 1 billion (often referred to as the "United Kingdom billion") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.228.229 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

John Keegan would have been used to the long scale billion until age ~40, and even in 1990 would probably have avoided the term billion for a 1000 million. I still dislike the British Government's 1974 unilateral change to my language and would prefer to use the proper term milliard, which was never so common as it still is in both France and Germany. I'll check WP:MOSNUM before altering it to 3,000 or 7,000 million.

But, over 6 years on, this hasn't been addressed, one way or another. Tim PF (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Mary gives a cost of 5,000,000,000 francs through 1935 for the northeastern fortifications (Tome 1) and 362,000,000 for the southeastern positions (Tome 5) in 1931. According to Kauffmann, about 3,650,000,000 was appropriated in 1930, 95% for the northeast and 5% for the southeast. Obviously, the numbers are somewhat nebulous, and there was more money spent in the late 1930s on the New Frontiers and various STG and MOM projects after CORF was disbanded. 7,000,000,000 seems like a realistic total cost. I'll keep looking for a better estimate that can be referenced. Acroterion _(talk) 03:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)