The anti-Maginot mentality

In contemporary history books, the Maginot Line, the series of fortifications build by the French Army in the 1930s to repel a German invasion, symbolises the folly of defensive thinking.

The standard narrative is that the backward-looking French chose a static means of defending themselves from attack and so succumbed to a simple bypassing maneuver by the more mobile and progressively-minded Germans.

This idea that defensive tactics are impractical and outdated ties in nicely with contemporary, progressive thinking in general.

Trying to contain a potential pandemic is costly and unrealistic. Building a wall to stop illegal immigration isn't a viable option. Containing an unpleasant dictator without regime change won't work. Joining a superstate is the best way to unsure peace. Turning away foreign labour will destroy a country's economy.

The way to deal with todays' international problems is simply accept them, reinterpret them as positives, or go on the attack. Only a backward-thinking, WWI-era reactionary would think problems can be tackled through defensive measures.

Given the dominance of anti-defensive thinking in the modern West, perhaps we should consider how stupid that supposed showcase of defensive thinking, the Maginot Line, actually was.

Certainly the Maginot Line strategy was a questionable one, and the failure to built defenses in the Ardenne sector was a foolish oversight. However, the most foolish aspect of the Maginot Line strategy wasn't so much the building of the line itself, which made reasonable sense, but the failure of the French to follow their defensive strategy to its logical conclusion.

Contrary to popular belief, the French did not originally intend to leave the border with Belgium undefended. The Maginot Line was intended to link up with a series of Belgium defenses to provide a defensive line running all the way to the coast.

In the event of the line being breached, the French had built up a large defensive Army, well-equipped with heavy tanks and artillery, which they believed was capable on taking on a German army with more mobile, but lightly-armoured tanks.

In 1936 though, the Belgians declared neutrality, which seriously comprimised the original strategy. Taking advantage of the division between France and Belgium, the Germans launched an attack in May 1940 which pierced the unsupported Belgium defensive line and enabled the Germans Army to roll on towards France.

Meanwhile instead of leaving Belgium to its fate, the French rashly decided to advance into Belgium with their large, lumbering, defensive Army, leaving a gaping hole in their rear. The Germans then launched a second attack through the Ardenne sector, leaving the over-stretched French cut-off from their supply lines and badly exposed to German air attack.

The logical response from the French, would have been to dig in, leave Belgium to its fate and reinforce the Ardenne sector. This would have narrowed the front and allowed them to engage the Germans using familiar defensive tactics on ground of their own choosing. In 1944, the Germans themselves used such tactics against the Allies, with the hedgerow country of Northern France proving ideal terrain for mechanised defensive warfare using heavy tanks and artillery.

The folly of the French decision to advance into Belgium was highlighted by the fact that they fought much better in the later stages of the campaign, when they were able to use their heavy tanks and guns defensively in prepared ambush situations. However, by this stage it was too late as most of their forces had already been overwhelmed in the German blitzrieg through the Low Countries.

Also forgotten by the critics of the Maginot Line, is that the Germans couldn't have launched their daring attack through the Ardenne without their own defensive line, the Seigfried Line, which protected them from a French counterattack to the south.

Given the Germans superiority in air power, organisation and morale, it's likely that the French would probably still have lost eventually, but by succumbing so easily, they gave Hitler a popular mandate for the invasion of Russia, a decision that lead to the unnecessary deaths of millions of people.

The Germans in 1940 weren't too keen on another costly war with a major power but, like most people, were perfectly willing to go to war for an easy victory against a long-time adversary.

The fallout from Hitler's fateful decision to invade Russia of course still haunts us today, through the hysterical anti-nationalism it's helped to engender among the modern liberal left.

Rather than being an example of the superiority of progressive thinking, the failure of the Maginot Line in 1940 symbolises the importance of old-fashioned common sense and prudence - if in doubt, then stick with tactics that you already know.

Slagging off the French

In the English-speaking world slagging off the French is a popular pastime.

The Americans blame the French for snobbish culture and political correctness. Australia and New Zealand dislike the French for testing nuclear bombs in the South Pacific.

The British still blame the French for their capitulation in 1940 as well as their role in founding the European Union, while English-speaking Canadians blame the French for Quebec.

As far as political correctness goes, France is no worse than any other western country. For example, France has conscription, modern nuclear power stations, and low taxes on cigarettes – hardly signs of extreme political correctness.

Its laws and economy may be a bit bureaucratic and socialist for some tastes but at least it doesn’t impose its economic views on countries outside the EU.

We should also give the French credit were credits due.

France has a proud intellectual tradition from the 18th century physiocrats and encyclopedists to great 20th Century historians like Fernand Braudel and Jacques Barzun – and where would political satire be without Voltaire.

As far as food and wine are concerned, France is number one – this isn’t really a debatable point. A visit to any reasonable sized French supermarket will reveal great food at very reasonable prices. Where else can you get a drinkable bottle of wine for a few euros.

France did co-found the EU (for better or worse) but it has had the good sense to reject the European Constitution and isn’t about to surrender its national autonomy.

Where the French really do deserve to be criticised its for spawning the demonic ramblings of post modern philosophy. France certainly owes the world an apology for the likes of Foucault and Derrida.

In Regards to the French outpost of Quebec, I don’t see what wrong with them asserting their own culture (at least in Quebec) or rejecting some aspects of American consumerism. However, I don’t think Canada or the world for that matter, needs another Pierre Trudeau let loose in Ottowa.

If the Gallic world could just apologise for post modernism and Trudeau then I think all should be forgiven. In return, as a sign of good faith, the English-speaking world should apologise for reality television and Britain’s railway system.

French Student Protests

This weeks student protests in France have certainly demonstrated that the country still has a healthy interest in politics. However, the demands of the protestors betray a disappointing lack of realism and imagination.

Young people in France are right to be concerned abour rising levels of inequality and should be opposed to policies that try to make France into another Britain. However, the French economy does need some restructuring and deregulating. The idea of long term, 35 hour a week contracts is simply too easy and to inflexible for the realities of the 21st Century. Similarly, ineqality cannot be addressed if unemployment remains at 10 percent or more.

With the population of France rapidly aging it is unrealistic to limit the work week to 35 hours and increase pensions and other social welfare benefits. However, the aging of the population does provide some opportunities. Demand for young workers is likely to increase and this should help reduce unemployment. France should now move with the times and make it easier to hire and fire wokers. What the student protestors should be focusing on is making sure that the minimum wage stays high so that workers are compensated for reduced job security. The Netherlands and Australia have shown the way by introducing a lot of labour market flexibility while maintaining high wages, good work conditions and relatively low unemployment.
Compared with countries like Britain and New Zealand, France has a pretty strong industrial base and high productivity levels so it can afford to pay its workers high wages.

The French should also put more resources into retraining wokers and assisting them to find work so as to limit the impact of reduced job security. Apparently Denmark has put a lot of resources into these kind of programmes and this a major reason why this country has a lower rate of unemployment levels than many other E.U states.

Rather than trying to stop the inevitable the French protestors should be trying to make the most of the reform process.