The Maginot Line was a good idea and kept the Germans out

If it wasn't for Belgium retardation, forbidding the Allied to enter its territory to strenghten its defences, Germany would have lost the war by 1942

>kept the Germans out
?

Attached: 1539823717861.png (804x767, 62K)

>Nobody expected them to do the thing that they just did 20 years ago.

>nobody expected Hitler to violate international law and ignore the neutrality of the Low Countries.
?

Show flag

I am showing my flag. The flag of the fourth Reich.

nobody want you here tho
only jews want you to kill europeans

Attached: 1547788563963.jpg (800x3600, 716K)

it's called treason.
their capitol became home to new reich

>Had to start an international incident by blitzkrieging your way through three countries before reaching France
France was smart no matter the situation.

The problem was it did not block the entire border so Germany just went around it.

Same problem we have with out border in the south.

maybe, still we outsmarted them

this is true but our generals thought the Germans couldn't pass through the Ardennes because they still had the WW1 mentality and they didn't realize modern tanks and logistical vehicules could do it easily.
if we had build the Maginot Line until the end , the Germans wouldn't have invaded just yet but i'm sure that we would have still lost since our generals sucked and were the biggest imcompetent fools of the whole war (except for the italians , of course).

France ever since the Franco-Prussian war had a military that didn't deserve its shitty leadership.

youtube.com/watch?v=sggJWiqdICA

The wall will work ,unless Merkel gets involved in southern us border and decides to use luftwaffe to drop in illegals

>the Germans wouldn't have invaded

Alternately, you could have not been a british lapdog and not declare the war.

All Germanic peoples should be united under one flag. Hitler was not wrong about that.

lel , but you would have invaded anyway , you were still salty about the "Traité de Versaille".

Attached: quote-belgium-is-a-country-invented-by-the-british-to-annoy-the-french-charles-de-gaulle-135-95-13.j (850x400, 56K)

Why do so many Francebros not want to annex Wallonie? Isn't there a lot of coal you could use to reindustrialize?

>letting a piece of paper stand in the way of an army
what the h

Sometimes, an attack is indeed the best defense. In an ideal world Trump would be actually invading Mexico, rather than building a wall. Defensive mentality is an unmistakable sign of civilizational decadence, especially when you actually have enough power to act, but choose not to.

Why do jews send money to Israel?

France abandoned coal , we went ahead and build tons of nuclear reactors , that's why we have our army in Africa , for that sweet uranium.
also i guess half of Belgium could potentially be annexed by us but if it evers happens it will be by referendum.
(so in short it will never happen)

I think you need to have your brain checked pretty fast if you think the mehico niggers are the same as 1940s wehrmacht

Why the hell did Belgium surrender so easily? Apparently they had a 600,000 strong army

you underestimate the trauma of what WW1 did to us , nobody wanted to attack Germany and cause another world war.
we lost so many people in the first one , the countryside was deserted , not enough workers , the economy wrecked beyond salvation and we lost the title of empire , seeing it crumble more and more each day and all the wounded coming back disfigured and insane or sometimes gassed that were dying slowly but surely years later (my great grandfather died from gas after some years and suffered horribly)
of course nobody wanted another world war , giving medals to the soldiers coming back from hell wasn't enough.

france would fill it with niggers anyway. give belgium to the netherlands

this.

wew.

>nobody expected the germans to do the exact same thing they did in 1914, except this time having mechanised & armoured forces with well integrated close air support
how the fuck did the allies not see this coming?

Aren't the greens trying to make you give up nuclear power too? France could he a much more stronger economy if it wasn't constantly sabotaging itself with parasitism and retarded bureaucracy.

WW1 mentality , they thought it would be another frozen conflict in trenches without tanks or planes , a purely infantry conflict , during WW1 tanks or airplanes weren't very effective so they never saw that coming.
also they were afraid of massive loses like in WW1.

it's easy to say that from the point of view of a modern man who already knows the subject but maybe in the future , war will change in a way nobody could predict ?

From the Complete Fucking Madmans guide to Warfare.
I mean it works but nobody has the balls

Where are the French's FOBs in africa? curious asf about our warmongering european bros.

>and algerians have paris...

It worked. The best fortress is the one that doesn't get attacked since it means its so strong that nobody wants to attack it.

Unfortunately for the french they fell for the same ruse twice.

You don't even live in Europe though...

the greens have no powers and votes here so that's not an issue ; France will NEVER give up it's nuclear energy.
and yes , i agree about us sabotaging ourselves over dumb thing and bureaucracy.
to tell the truth , if you have a business in France , in case you go into a big debt and your business starts to fail but hasn't completely failed yet , the governement will try to take everything from you and leave you poor (and with a massive debt to pay) instead of investing again so you can succeed , they even take your tools/machines and sell them in an auction (you will receive no money for it btw).
that's why we'll never be an empire again and will always be left out :(

The Ardennes was also a very dense forest, Nobody expected anyone to be able to move vehicles or tanks through it. Vehicles were still a pretty new thing.

The germans just did what they did best and engineered their way through cutting a path through it.

the main reason would be Uranium , Diamond mines ; the second reason would be projection power in case we need to attack a country far from France (and Africa is perfect since it has no power over us , they speak French and they are somewhat loyal to the French) , anti-terrorism operations too with our airports.
and a third reason would be because they used to be a colony and they can't make a proper governement and system without the aid from France so we have to stay there , helps keep the troops at a good level too.
chinks are trying to invade by Mauritania , they are buying the debts of certain cities in exchange of having control , they build a military port to help controlling the new chinese silk road (named OBOR (One Belt , One Road)) by the sea.

all in all we're not so evil colonialist like people claim we are , we enforce peace there since they can't function properly.

No op noooo.
All modern warfare is fire and movement. Static defenses are therefore useless. They leave only fire, no movement. There is no real distinction between offense and defense in war. A mobile force is the only way.

Back in Mexican-American war time cities and civillian population used to be spared from wars. Now, thanks to wonderful modernity, they participate in wars, mainly as victims. Also, just imaine US today entering Mexico City and having to deal with urban guerrilla evverywhere. Only scortched earth tatics could work.

also to add about the Frenchs FOB's , there's no really precise maps since we are basically nearly everywhere , you'll find some on the internet but they often fail to mention plenty of bases , so they are half wrong.
yeah we keep our bases secret from the common folks.

these quotes sound fake and gay

Based

Leftist did that maginot line you absolute waste of breathable air.

The failure of the maginot line was not the fortifications or their placement it was the rest of the army not modernizing.
It was not a question of resources but of utilizing those resources effectively.
Between England and France they had the numbers. Their equipment was on par or better. They lacked the organization.
Tanks were tied to infantry units unable to use their mobility. They were not concentrated into units that could over run a position. Communication systems were lacking also.

Assuming 1939 France decides to reorganize its military cheaply without adding major new weapon systems.
>put tanks and mech troops in units together. Brigade to division strength.
>remove most tanks from infantry divisions
>take advantage of the defense of the maginto by limiting the amount of troops manning it.
>move troops to jumping off points near the border but not on the front line.

Why would this work?
It almost did. After the breakout from the Ardennes the French hastily organized a counter attack into the flank of the advance. Quick thinking by the Germans to use 88 AA guns were the saving grace.

Soon enough, maybe after we will purge ourself and starting an holy crusade in Germany.

Attached: 24AA9641-9E7E-42E5-9E1E-3626765B170D.jpg (1042x743, 120K)

It is invaded too often by Germany good protection I guess.

Focus on purging yourself, I hear you have a couple hundred years of blacking to fix.

Walloons are financially supported by Flanders.

Agree with you, it could always be use as cheap worker like you did.

Attached: 10A1C3C0-6B13-48A8-9817-48B9B10F2CE9.jpg (261x148, 6K)

>Amerikaner

Germans BTFO, thank you for the Japanese and Chinese tourists money

That's because they wanted to attack from there, the initial french plan was:
>Put scrubs division on maginot
>Put best division in belgium through diplomatic relations
>If the germans don't attack Belgium we win by attrition
>If the germans attack through Belgium we roftlstomp them to the Rhine thanks to our surprise factor
Un?fortunatly the Belgian decided to stop all french units from entering the country after the french decided to do nothing during the remilititarization of the Rhineland and when the germans attacked and the belgian gave permission to the french to enter the country it was already too late to organize a counter-offensive

I guess you guys need to take the Left Bank then as well. ;^)

>France could he a much more stronger economy if it wasn't constantly sabotaging itself with parasitism and retarded bureaucracy.

Attached: pendu2.png (633x759, 68K)

>you underestimate the trauma of what WW1 did to us
>WW1 mentality , they thought it would be another frozen conflict in trenches without tanks or planes

Explains why the french people allowed their elite to declare war on Germany over a polish provocation and refuse every peace offer by Hitler. Just in time when bolshevists prepare for invasion of europe and even have grabbed eastern Poland.

>The Maginot Line was a good idea and kept the Germans out
Yeah. WW2 never happened.
/thread.

There is no reason to start a company in France apart if you want to be bankrupt really fast.

The Maginot line was itself effective, the failure was the strategic and tactical doctrine of the allied forces. The purpose of the Maginot line was to deter any direct attack by Germany on France, forcing to the Germans to repeat a Schlieflen plan attack. The strongest Allied formations were positioned on the northern Belgium frontier to counter such attack. The Germans initially attacked Belgium and Holland with Army group B, the allies took the bait and rushed its mobile forces to combat it. Afterwards, Army group A which contained the bulk of the Wermachts mobile forces attacked the Ardennnes area, broke through the allied lines, and the proceeded to envelop the BEF, French First Army, and the remnant Belgium and Dutch forces. The Maginot line did was it was intended to do, but the Bongs and Frogs were unable to adapt to mechanized warfare.

Yes, just avoid having any unguarded woods where columns of vehicles can move through.

Attached: merchican.jpg (932x960, 100K)

You had to go around it

People were not big fan of German at this time I guess.

Don't make the same mistake we did, they'll demand equal rights. Send them back user.

The really fascinating thing about Tocqueville is how he discovered all these letters written to the King and parlements where commoners were writing about local problems but in actuality were simply fishing for positions to engage in rent seeking during the apex of the Ancien Régime. It's just a weird cultural problem that has been around for centuries at this point.

It's a fine idea. The flaw was backing it up with a nation of cowards.

>kept the germans out
but it literally did the exact opposite of that

>Yes, just avoid having any unguarded woods where columns of vehicles can move through.
Well, the Maginot line was defended by a minimal force of second class conscript and old timers.
The wall freed up resources for the french to put all troops closer to the Ardenne.

So the wall wasn't the issue, it was objectively the only part of the defence that worked.

It wasn’t ment to keep the Germans out, it was ment to narrow the front to allow French and British troops contain the initial blow while the French mobilization took place. The French were still basing military doctrine on WW1. I suggest reading “Panzer Leader” by Heinz Guderian, it has some good personal insight about the fall of France.

Attached: D61AD9BD-DE90-4110-9CA3-EF31DB028320.jpg (792x576, 626K)

because everyone hated Germans , they were our worst enemy at the time , the common people were afraid of losing their sons again but they had a deep rooted hatred for Germans , even in the 70's and 80's , you could still hear stories about parents refusing to go to the marriage of their kids if they were marrying Germans.
also we did try to avoid war as much as possible , we didn't even attack Germany when they invaded Poland , even though we had an alliance that stated that we HAD to defend them in case of attack.

>implying the virgin french bottom of today can compete with the negro chad bull
cant wait to cleanse France of niggers and make it an utopia, you had your turn and failed

Attached: 1541066615451.gif (320x310, 2.36M)

What are you talking about? The Germans had to go around it.

t. treacherous Albion bombing the fleet of his ally that was ready to leave for the colonies to avoid falling in German hands.

Attached: perfidious_albion.png (650x400, 14K)

>”-in architecture you could make one clear observation about European building for the greater part of that time say 85% of that time at least if you were Martin viewing the planet's evolution slowly over that time. Two classes of structures stand out, for their scale, their durability, and sheer investment and effort expended upon them and they are quite simply churches and fortifications.”

>”If you put it crudely Europe invested in the means of physical and spiritual security. You should see the two as a kind of analogy because of course churches are one of the technologies of salvation, They're thus a defense against eternal damnation- So walls without churches within that is what we spend out money on for 800 years.”

>”Now the interesting thing is if you look at (((architectural history))) it's lavished its attention on churches and so has the (((heritage industry))) but if we consider fortifications different and rather curious for the first 500 years our period the main form of fortification was the castle of the city wall. We now regard these structures as romantic and picturesque they're jolly nice ruins and they're much visited by the public and expensively maintained by (((heritage bodies))).”

>”But in the early sixteenth century castles were supplemented then replaced by artillery fortifications based on the trace Italian-”
“Paul Hirst – Fortification as Architecture”: youtube.com/watch?v=DuT_Rx4qMBg

Attached: TowerInterio65.jpg (1516x1600, 1.57M)

Uhhh…. I know it wasn't much but let's not discount the Saar Offensive. Moreover unlike France and Britain who could easily play the long game with the resources of their empires behind them, Germany's best method of defence has always been to attack, fast and ferociously to ensure a quick victory before their lack of resources is felt. For Germany attacking really is the best form of defence.

Still your troops were demoralized and lacked zeal, a fortress can only be as good as the soldiers manning it. Overall it was smart, you didnt loose huge amounts pf your population and you reached some degree of continental power after the war

Is it just me or is it interesting that the fortification which is most depicted and romanticized in (((mainstream media))) is the castle? Historically castles were used by the ruling class to oppress landless peasants more often then they were used to repel invaders, I would bet money on the idea that the lords of old tired their best to convince the peasants the castle wasn't there to oppress them.

Guns and cannons ended the feudal age because the peasants were finally able to threaten and in some cases overthrow their ruling class, But fortifications didn't cease to exist because the threat of foreign invasion still existed and city walls didn't cut it anymore. The fortifications which replaced castles and city walls required so much organized manpower to build that their construction directly helped lead to the formation of nation-states as we now understand it. Also I'm pretty sure the the Ottoman Invasion and the expulsion/segregation of Jews in Italy/Venice started in the 16th century. Coincidence?

Want to know why American suburbs in the 50's all look the same? It's because they were designed to resist nuclear attacks, White painted houses wont burst into flames by a nuclear flash and if they do the front/back yards and space along side the houses stops fires from spreading. Federal Civil Defense fallout shelters used to be very common too. Don't you see how it's in the (((globalists))) interest to convince you that the government can't invest in the national safety of its citizens? Perfect for Israel's “Samson Option”. Meanwhile Israel is on the forefront of boarder wall technology yet also fights to prevent it's benefactors from doing the same. The fight over the US-Mexico boarder wall is mostly just a bunch of Jewish media campaign and dual citizenship politicians trying to funnel US taxpayer dollars into Israel to ensure it stays Jewish while flooding the US with illegal aliens to permanently divide and conquer the country.

Attached: Brest Fortress.jpg (1280x929, 312K)

the smart play would have been to extend the line to the coast.

The modern conception and historical interpretation of the Maginot Line is France's punishment by the Jews for not directly attacking Germany during the “Phoney war”, Most mainstream (((media))) & (((education))) on the Maginot Line repeats the same bullshit about how the line cost too much, that it was completely avoided, and that it participated in no battles, and was fundamentally obsolete by WW1. “The Maginot Line Feature Documentary 2000” gives details that say otherwise: youtube.com/watch?v=D7MuQM0rt_w

>Technology has changed so even if fortifications were viable in the past they aren’t anymore.
The US military paper “Fixed Permanent Fortifications at the Operational Level of War” explores permanent fortifications from the Maginot line to the current era and concludes that fortifications are completely viable today, They are just more dependent on long term politics then other military investments and that the US government has completely lost all it's fortification building experience. Don't forget to consider other countries besides the United States who probably have just as much if not more to gain from investments into modern permanent fortifications.

Virtually all of the technology used in military ships and submarines applies to permanent fortifications as well if not better due to their unlimited weight and space capacity. Therefore a modern fortress would look like an aircraft carrier made of UHP concrete that's embedded into the earth, Surrounded by many dispersed remotely operated weapon systems armed in composition similar to a modern carrier strike group. The only way to defeat such a system without engaging in a costly and time consuming siege is a direct strike with a nuclear weapon as modern concrete and defense systems make it immune to indirect attacks.

Attached: carrierstrikegroup.jpg (790x513, 87K)

yeah Germany was always on offense , they also had very good engineers that had the money and approval of the governement to build great machines of warfare.
France had great engineers too but the army didn't want to modernize , they thought all the wars would be infantry focused so they neglected the planes and the tanks , the navy wasn't so bad though.

however we learned since WW2 , our modern army relies on offense and superior mobility (like for example , fast artillery trucks instead of big and slow heavily armored artillery tanks , an example among many others) , so we definitely improved.

The peasant knew very well what purpose a castle served, they sometimes burned them down themself when there was a threat of foreign invasion and occupation e.g. the swedish in the 1630s

It was, problem is the line didn't stretch completely across their eastern border.

The collapse of Eben Emael fucked their lines.

yeah , but WW2 was still the nail on the coffin since we lost what remained of our colonial power shortly after.
i think it would have been much worse if we resisted against Germans like in WW1 , our economy probably wouldn't have recovered and there would have been no men to make babies and future workers , we probably wouldn't even exist as a regional power anymore.

True, France would prob kick our ass, if a war broke out right now, not though if we were given a couple years to prepare.

Why would you declare war if you have no intention of attacking?

that's exactly what the allies expected and contrary to the map in OP's image most allied forces prepared for an assault through belgium.

>ruling class to oppress landless peasants
most peasants supported feudalism
it was the urban poor and middle class that got rid of it

France's military leadership had a really nasty socialist streak where they claimed they materials were capitalistic and not needed