Fortress France: The Maginot Line and French Defenses in World War II by J. E. Kaufmann and H. W. Kaufmann. Praeger (http://www ­.greenwood.com/praeger.aspx), Greenwood Publishing Group, 88 Post Road West, Westport, Connecticut 06881, 2005, 220 pages, $49.95 (hardcover).

The Treaty of Versailles ended World War I, but it did nothing to prevent World War II. Shortly after it was signed, European countries began considering plans for the next inevitable war. France initially created offensive plans but found them unrealistic due to manpower shortages created by World War I. In 1929 André Maginot, the French minister of war and a veteran of Verdun, began pushing for the creation of massive defenses that would cut off German invasion routes into France. He preferred physical structures because, as he said, “concrete is better . . . and is less expensive than a wall of chests” (p. 15). The wall that France built would carry his name. If only it had worked.

After World War II, one encountered much talk describing the Maginot Line as a white elephant that created a false sense of security—a “Maginot mentality” that doomed France to defeat. Authors J. E. Kaufmann and H. W. Kaufmann take the opposite stance, suggesting that the Maginot Line fulfilled its purpose and gave French authorities an opportunity to mass their combat power in the face of the Nazi onslaught. The authors posit that restrictive French doctrine limited subordinates’ freedom of initiative, hemming in the French military’s free thinkers. That argument, which the Kaufmanns state as a given, is certainly worthy of consideration, but this reviewer takes no position on it because the points are difficult to glean from this dense work.

Rather than a work of history or doctrinal analysis, Fortress France is predominantly an engineering study, packed full of detailed drawings and explanations of every aspect of the Maginot Line down to the smallest detail. For example, readers interested in the protective properties of reinforced concrete walls against artillery shells of various sizes will appreciate table 2-9 (p. 49), typical of the book’s many tables. Whereas most military histories lack sufficient graphics and visuals, this one comes close to overdoing it, offering 33 tables and 54 figures—almost half the book.

In an effort to put the Maginot Line in context, the authors do offer a short opening chapter that discusses its origins as well as snapshots of the preparations and performance of France’s air and naval arms. Additionally, they mention similar French defensive works in Africa known as the Mareth Line. However, one finds the book’s one-page concluding chapter unsatisfying, serving merely as an endnote that will leave the reader wondering about the authors’ true points.

Furthermore, Fortress France devotes itself completely to the physical properties of the wall. As the premise of the book implies, if the wall itself comprises only part of the story, then the authors should have placed more emphasis on the people involved. They do include all the major players but in such a way that fails to bring out their humanity—their sterile presentation simply doesn’t excite the mind. This is a shame because the story of the Maginot Line presents such fertile ground for military thinkers—ground that Fortress France leaves untilled.

Oftentimes military history allows the student to establish parallels and extract lessons that apply to modern military thought. Why read military history—or any history for that matter—if we cannot use it to understand our current condition? This book may do that—but without assistance from the authors. For example, might the lessons of the Maginot Line and France’s reliance on it for defense serve as a warning to those who favor robots, unmanned vehicles, and smart weapons over human efforts? One will never know because the Kaufmanns fail to open the door to such thinking.

Finally, the book is just too expensive. For $49.95, one could buy several decent books on the subject. Overall, the extremely limited scope and excessive detail of Fortress France, together with other concerns mentioned above, limit its utility for the average reader.
 

CSM James H. Clifford, USA, Retired
McDonough, Georgia

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

 Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor