Historical Society Applications

Gerd von Rundstedt, I'd like to join.

World War II (especially the Battle of France and the Battle of Britain).

Also, but not as detailed as WWII, history of Habsburg Monarchy from 1756 to 1866, World War I, and the Spanish Civil War.

After World War I, the thought of possiblity that Germany trying to avenge Versailles became an important issue for the French. In addition, World War I caused significant military losses for France like the others and created a population problem. Also, this was thought as a possible problem for France in a possible German attack, since it has a smaller population than Germany. In addition, when the casualties and the economic damage in WWI were added, the French did not want a war within the territory of France again. They would avoid it no matter what. So they needed a protect against it. This was one of the main motivations of Maginot Line for the French.

Therefore, the idea of ​​the Maginot Line emerged and received support from many people. This would protect to French- German border and direct the German army to Benelux in a possible German attack (if Germany dare to attack them), and France would use its limited (than Germany) manpower to there in this case. Meanwhile the French Army would be mobilized (the reserve forces). Also, an important French industry was near to the German border and France did not want to lose it. So while Maginot Line covering the border, it would protect them as well. Also, the line would save manpower. While the German border was guarded by normal units who have the defensive advantage of the fortifications, France would be able to send its best armies to the Benelux. After all, an army with strong fortifications and good defense, despite being outnumbered, had a better chance of resisting a numerically superior army and was advantageous. Some of the building reasons were them.

The Maginot Line technically worked in some ways (not in all ways) in Battle of France. It prevented the Germans from attacking from the border which is covered by the Line and directed the war to Benelux as intended, that is, it accomplished its goals. But the Allies were defeated in the Benelux. So the Maginot Line did its job, but the Allied armies couldn't do theirs and so the Maginot Line alone couldn't serve to win the war, it just did its job. So actually the Maginot Line wasn't as bad as it seems, it worked within its limits, but when the other side of the plan failed, France was invaded. And the Allies did not realize that the Ardennes forest was not impassable.

Germany did not attack the Maginot Line directly, they attacked the rather weak Ardennes side. The French planners thought that the difficult geography of the Ardennes was impassable and the fortifications there were really poorly built with this in mind, so basically the fortifications on there were not as good as the rest in the German border. But they were wrong, the Ardennes could be passed. And when there was a hole in Sedan, it was passed on there.

Germany did not directly attack the Maginot Line. Because the Maginot Line was very strong. It could be passed (like the other fortifications) by the increasing firepower of the age, but it would take a long time and cause great casualties for Germany though. But Germany didn't want a long war and face with the main fortificaion. So the Germans looked for a problem in the Allies side for a quick victory (as suitable with Blitzkrieg) and then found the Ardennes.

So it wasn't worth attacking the Maginot Line. In other words, Maginot Line has successfully done its job.

In conclusion, in my opinion, the Maginot Line was not the best investment to make. But it wasn't the worst investment either, and a few things were different from what the media had portrayed. The Maginot Line worked technically as intended and completed its goals, but the line itself meant nothing when Allied armies and the other side of the plan failed.

During the making progress of the Treaty of Versailles, Georges Clemencau wanted more agressive conditions against Germany at first with the thought to block a revenge war in the future, but when he did not receive support from the U.S.A. and Britain in this stance, he had to be more moderate like them. Also,
actually, the U.S.A. and Britain promised a treaty to help to defend France in a German attack in the future, but Britain accepted it on condition the U.S.A. ratified it too. But due to the not be able to reach an internal consensus, it didn't came to vote in the United States Senate. So, there was no special treaty to defend France. In other words, France couldn't entirely get what they want and was not completely satisfied against the possiblity of the threat of a future German revenge after Versailles.

After Versailles, France was not in a very good situation. WWI's heavy losses created a population problem and traumatized the generation known as the lost generation, and the economy due to WWI's impact (and financial cost of war) damaged. The part of the country that was included in the Western Front was razed and devastated as a result of the war, and was badly damaged, inflicting damage to the economy. In particular, this trauma of war had some impact on the political attitudes of that generation, as in many other countries (it laid the foundation for the idea of ​​preventing a new war).

But they thought that there was a threat that the Germans would attack to avenge Versailles, and the French thought that they had to take action against this threat. Germany had a larger population than France and therefore had more manpower. Also, the French did not want new destruction like in WWI either. As a precaution against this threat, the French could first have a strong ally. But as I mentioned in the first paragraph, they couldn't get it. The USA left Europe after the war and focused on itself. Britain had turned inward and maintained a loose alliance with France, but they were more moderate against Germany than France wanted.

Therefore, France was left alone in foreign relations in a sense and turned inward. The French did not want a repeat of WWI at any cost, especially when they were alone. The desire to prevent a war was to be an important motivation for the French people about appeasement policies in the future. In this period, in addition to diplomacy, the issue of taking a military precaution against a possible German attack came to the fore. Later, the people's (includes André Maginot) fortificiation line proposal was accepted. And this line named after André Maginot.

And France built the Maginot Line. Thus (since Germany could not attack on the Line), France's inner lands would be protected and Germany would attack either through Belgium or Switzerland (if they want to attack), but Switzerland was already automatically eliminated due to its geography. And only Belgium remained. In other words, France would save the limited manpower from Germany and use it there.

In French policies, when the Nazis came to power in Germany and Germany became stronger as economically and militarily, the thought of a German attack increased and came to the fore. But the policy of appeasement was sought as a solution. France and Britain did nothing against the Germans when it sent its troops into the demilitarized Rhineland and remilitarize it, in 1936, Czechoslovakia was completely taken etc. In other words, they gave Germany the opportunity to do what it wanted by violating the international treaties like Versailles and Germany used it. In other words, the established political order was collapsed and the League of Nations was rendered dysfunctional. Germany was taking back what Germany had lost by Versailes, one by one (and with new ones). Then, after a long process, Czechoslovakia completely disappeared. Whereas, Germany said that it respected Czechoslovakia's territorial integrity. Thus, in the end, the policy of appeasement proved useless against Germany.

In a sense, the League of Nations could not protect even its own members, so the diplomatic system had collapsed. The strengthening of Germany was allowed, but Germany never satisfied by seeing France and Britain's policy, so the policy of appeasement was not working. Europe was moving towards war, with people like British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain trying desperately to continue their policy. And as Chamberlain returned from the Munich Agreement and made the famous "I have returned from Germany with peace for our time" announcement, Europe was moving towards war in long run. Because Germany would not be satisfied, and when something happened that would harm the interests of France and Britain at some point in the future, they would naturally have to confront each other.

One of the reasons the appeasement policy was popular and supported at the time was the painful memory of WWI for people and it was still present, its effects, and the psychology of the generation of its time. So they wanted to avoid a new war. And there was one more problem. France had internal problems such as political instability, unrest, and economic problems, and they didn't want to deal with war while they were in this situation. Also, on the other hand, Britain wanted to gain time to prepare.

As a result, I think it was not in the best interest of the French to maintain the peace since 1933. History might have been different if Britain and France had taken a more determined and joint stance against Germany and/or intervene in a point, even before it had become stronger and before remilitarize itself (that is, when it is much weaker) like it was in 1939. For example, remilitarization of Rhineland may be a opportunity to intervene. But on the other hand, they would have to solve some of their internal problems and first prepare to intervene too.
Of course, the policy of appeasement was not without reason, but that doesn't change the fact that the policy was mostly wrong in the Interwar Period and there may be better alternatives to do. And after all, it couldn't stop Germany, and then the events started.

Gerd von Rundstedt, how about some Q/As time? Put some random historical questions and let people put their views. I know that we have other threads here having the same function, but still, let's do it because -

1.Let's do something other than just taking in people.

2. I really want to revise my historical knowledge. What better than debate

3. I am getting nostalgic.

Well they got a banger national anthem for one.

The Bolshevik revolution, in the long run, did improve the lives of the people of USSR. From being the most backward and agricultural European economy to one of the world's greatest superpowers in 30 years (Sure, it was mainly due to the WW2, but they even maintained it for some 45 years is great job done!) is good work. Moreover, USSR would have surely lost the war with the Nazis if it wasn't for the Iron grip and cold hearted policies of Stalin. Previously, I talked about Zhukov being the reason the USSR resisted. I'll take that back (Sorry Kliment Jefremovitš Vorošilov).

You also have to remember that the USSR was the only major economy which wasn't greatly affected by the Great Depression. Moreover, within a generation of the Bolshevik's ascension to power in USSR, illiteracy was eradicated almost completely. Sure, their 'definition' of literacy might vary, but still. It's just that their rulers were too harsh and they focused on developing their military, rather than the lives of their people after the war.