text:
Maginot Line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
Maginot Line
Ligne Maginot
Eastern France
The entrance to Ouvrage Schoenenbourg along the Maginot Line in Alsace
Type
Defensive line
Site information
Controlled by
France
Open to
the public
Yes
Condition
Mostly intact, through the preservation of the French Government
Site history
Built
1929–1938
Built by
Paul Painlevé, Colonel Tricaud
Named after André Maginot (French Minister of War, 1915–1920s)
In use
1935–1969
Materials
Concrete, steel, iron
Battles/wars
World War II
Battle of France (1940)
Operation Nordwind (1945)
The Maginot Line (French: Ligne Maginot, IPA: [liɲ maʒino]), named after the French Minister of War André Maginot, was a line of concrete fortifications, obstacles, and weapon installations built by France in the 1930s to deter invasion by Germany and force them to move around the fortifications. Constructed on the French side of its borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg, the line did not extend to the English Channel due to French strategy that envisioned a move into Belgium to counter a German assault.
Based on France's experience with trench warfare during World War I, the massive Maginot Line was built in the run-up to World War II, after the Locarno Conference gave rise to a fanciful and optimistic "Locarno spirit". French military experts extolled the Line as a work of genius that would deter German aggression, because it would slow an invasion force long enough for French forces to mobilize and counterattack.
The Maginot Line was impervious to most forms of attack, including aerial bombings and tank fire, and had underground railways as a backup; it also had state-of-the-art living conditions for garrisoned troops, supplying air conditioning and eating areas for their comfort.[1] Instead of attacking directly, the Germans invaded through the Low Countries, bypassing the Line to the north. French and British officers had anticipated this: when Germany invaded the Netherlands and Belgium, they carried out plans to form an aggressive front that cut across Belgium and connected to the Maginot Line. However, the French line was weak near the Ardennes forest, a region whose rough terrain they considered unlikely for the Germans to traverse. The German Army took advantage of this weak point to split the French–British defensive front.[2] The Allied forces to the north were forced to evacuate at Dunkirk, leaving the forces to the south unable to mount an effective resistance to the German invasion of France.[3]
The line has since become a metaphor for expensive efforts that offer a false sense of security.
Contents
[hide]
1 Purposes
2 Planning and construction
2.1 1927: Allied Control Commission abolished
2.2 German economic superiority
2.3 War of long duration
3 Manning
4 Organization
5 Inventory
5.1 Ouvrages
5.2 Armoured cloches
5.3 Retractable turrets
5.4 Artillery
5.5 Anti-tank guns
6 Features
6.1 Czechoslovak connection
7 German invasion in World War II
8 After World War II
9 Post-war assessment
10 See also
11 Notes
12 References
13 Further reading
14 External links
Purposes[edit]
The Maginot Line was built to fulfil several purposes:
To prevent a surprise German attack,[4] and to deter a cross-border assault.[5]
To protect Alsace and Lorraine (returned to France in 1918) and their industrial basin[6]
To save manpower (France counted 39 million inhabitants, Germany 70 million)
To cover the mobilisation of the French Army[7] (which took between two and three weeks)
To push Germany into an effort to circumvent via Switzerland or Belgium,[8] and allow France to fight the next war off of French soil to avoid a repeat of 1914-18.[9]
To be used as a basis for a counter-offensive[10]
Planning and construction[edit]
The Maginot Line
The defences were first proposed by Marshal Joffre. He was opposed by modernists such as Paul Reynaud and Charles de Gaulle, who favoured investment in armour and aircraft. Joffre had support from Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain, and there were a number of reports and commissions organised by the government. It was André Maginot who finally convinced the government to invest in the scheme. Maginot was another veteran of World War I; he became the French Minister of Veteran Affairs and then Minister of War (1928–1932).
In January 1923, after Germany defaulted on reparations, the French Premier Raymond Poincaré responded by sending French troops to occupy Germany's Ruhr region. During the ensuing Ruhrkampf ("Ruhr struggle") between the Germans and the French that lasted until September 1923, Britain condemned the French occupation of the Ruhr, and a period of sustained Francophobia broke out in Britain, with Poincaré being vilified in Britain as a cruel bully punishing Germany with unreasonable reparations demands. The British—who openly championed the German position on reparations—applied intense economic pressure on France to change its policies towards Germany. At a conference in London in 1924 to settle the Franco-German crisis caused by the Ruhrkampf, the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald successfully pressed the French Premier Édouard Herriot to make concessions to Germany. The British diplomat Sir Eric Phipps who attended the conference commented afterwards that:
The London Conference was for the French 'man in the street' one long Calvary as he saw M. Herriot abandoning one by one the cherished possessions of French preponderance on the Reparations Commission, the right of sanctions in the event of German default, the economic occupation of the Ruhr, the French-Belgian railroad Régie, and finally, the military occupation of the Ruhr within a year.[11]
The great conclusion that was drawn in Paris after the Ruhrkampf and the 1924 London conference was that France could not make unilateral military moves to uphold Versailles as the resulting British hostility to such moves was too dangerous to the republic. Beyond that, the French were well aware of the contribution of Britain and its Dominions to the victory of 1918, and French decision-makers believed that they needed Britain's help to win another war; the French could only go so far with alienating the British.[12] From 1871 onwards, French elites had concluded that France had no hope of defeating Germany on its own, and France would need an alliance with another great power to defeat the Reich.[13]
1927: Allied Control Commission abolished[edit]
In 1927, the Allied Control Commission, which was responsible for ensuring that Germany complied with Part V of the Treaty of Versailles, was abolished as a goodwill gesture reflecting the "Spirit of Locarno".[14] When the Control Commission was dissolved, the commissioners in their final report issued a blistering statement, stating that Germany had never sought to abide by Part V and the Reichswehr had been engaging in covert rearmament all through the 1920s. Under the Treaty of Versailles France was to occupy the Rhineland region of Germany until 1935, but in fact the last French troops left the Rhineland in June 1930 in exchange for Germany accepting the Young Plan.[15] As long as the Rhineland was occupied by the French, the Rhineland served as a type of collateral under which the French would annex the Rhineland in the event of Germany breaching any of the articles of the treaty, such as rearming in violation of Part V; this threat was powerful enough to deter successive German governments all through the 1920s from attempting any overt violation of Part V.[16] French plans as developed by Marshal Ferdinand Foch in 1919 were based on the assumption that in the event of a war with the Reich, the French forces in the Rhineland were to embark upon an offensive to seize the Ruhr.[16] A variant of the Foch plan had been used by Poincaré in 1923 when he ordered the French occupation of the Ruhr.[16] French plans for an offensive in the 1920s were realistic, as Versailles had forbidden Germany conscription, and the Reichswehr was limited to 100,000 men. Once the French forces left the Rhineland in 1930, this form of leverage with the Rhineland as collateral was no longer available to Paris, which from then on had to depend on Berlin's word that it would continue to abide by the terms of the Versailles and Locarno treaties, which stated that the Rhineland was to stay demilitarized forever.[16] Given that Germany had engaged in covert rearmament with the co-operation of the Soviet Union starting in 1921 (a fact that become public knowledge in 1926) and that every German government had gone out of its way to insist on the moral invalidity of Versailles, claiming it was based upon the so-called Kriegsschuldlüge ("War guilt lie") that Germany started the war in 1914, the French had little faith that the Germans would willingly allow the Rhineland's demilitarized status to continue forever, and believed that at some time in the future Germany would rearm in violation of Versailles, reintroduce conscription and remilitarize the Rhineland.[16] The decision to build the Maginot Line in 1929 was a tacit French admission that without the Rhineland as collateral Germany was soon going to rearm, and that the terms of Part V had a limited lifespan.[16]
German economic superiority[edit]
After 1918, the German economy was three times as large as that of France; Germany had a population of 70 million compared to France's 40 million and the French economy was hobbled by the need to reconstruct the enormous damage of World War I, while German territory had seen little fighting. French military chiefs were dubious about their ability to win another war against Germany on its own, especially an offensive war.[16] French decision-makers knew that the victory of 1918 had been achieved because the British Empire and the United States were allies in the war and that the French would have been defeated on their own.[15] With the United States isolationist and Britain stoutly refusing to make the "continental commitment" to defend France on the same scale as in World War I, the prospects of Anglo-American assistance in another war with Germany appeared to be doubtful at best.[15] Versailles did not call for military sanctions in the event of Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland or breaking Part V; while Locarno committed Britain and Italy to come to French aid in the event of a "flagrant violation" of the Rhineland's demilitarized status, without defining what a "flagrant violation" would be.[16] The British and Italian governments refused in subsequent diplomatic talks to define "flagrant violation", which led the French to place little hope in Anglo-Italian help if Germany should remilitarize the Rhineland.[16] Given the diplomatic situation in the late 1920s, the Quai d'Orsay informed the government that French military planning should be based on a worst-case scenario that France would fight the next war against Germany, without the help of Britain or the United States.[16]
France had an alliance with Belgium and with the states of the Cordon sanitaire, as the French alliance system in Eastern Europe was known. Although the alliances with Belgium, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia were appreciated in Paris, it was widely understood that this was no compensation for the absence of Britain and the United States. The French military was especially insistent that the population disparity made an offensive war of maneuver and swift advances suicidal as there would always be far more German divisions; a defensive strategy was needed to counter Germany.[16] The French assumption was always that Germany would not go to war without conscription, which would allow the German Army to take advantage of the Reich's numerical superiority. Without the natural defensive barrier provided by the Rhine river, French generals argued that France needed a new defensive barrier made of concrete and steel to replace it.[16] The power of properly dug-in defensive trenches had been amply demonstrated during World War I, when a few soldiers manning a single machine gun post could kill hundreds of the enemy in the open and therefore building a massive defensive line with subterranean concrete shelters was the most rational use of French manpower.[17]
The American historian William Keylor wrote that given the diplomatic conditions of 1929 and likely trends, the decision to build the Maginot Line was not irrational and stupid, building the Maginot Line was a sensible response to the problems that would be created by the coming French withdrawal from the Rhineland in 1930.[17] Part of the rationale for the Maginot Line stemmed from the severe French losses during the First World War, and their effect on the French population.[18] The drop in the birth rate during and after the war, resulting in a national shortage of young men, created an "echo" effect in the generation that provided the French conscript army in the mid-1930s.[18] Faced with a manpower shortage, French planners had to rely more on older and less fit reservists, who would take longer to mobilize and would diminish French industry because they would leave their jobs. Static defensive positions were therefore intended not only to buy time but to economise on men by defending an area with fewer and less mobile forces. In 1940, France deployed about twice as many men, 36 divisions (roughly one third of its force), for the defence of the Maginot Line in Alsace and Lorraine, whereas the opposing German Army Group C only contained 19 divisions, fewer than a seventh of the force committed in the Manstein Plan for the invasion of France.[19] Reflecting memories of World War I, the French General Staff had developed the concept of la puissance du feu ("the power of fire"), the power of artillery dug in and sheltered by concrete and steel, to inflict devastating losses on an attacking force.[20]
War of long duration[edit]
Map of the principal fortified section of the Maginot Line
French planning for war with Germany was always based on the assumption that the war would be la guerre de longue durée (the war of the long duration), in which the superior economic resources of the Allies would gradually grind the Germans down.[21] The fact that the Wehrmacht embraced the strategy of Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) with the vision of swift wars in which Germany would win quickly via a knock-out blow, was a testament to the fundamental soundness of the concept of la guerre de longue durée.[21] Germany had the largest economy in Europe but lacked many of the raw materials necessary for a modern industrial economy (making the Reich vulnerable to a blockade) and the ability to feed its population. The guerre de longue durée strategy called for the French to halt the expected German offensive meant to give the Reich a swift victory; afterwards, there would be an attrition struggle; once the Germans were exhausted France would begin an offensive to win the war.[21]
The Maginot Line was intended to block the main German blow if it should come in eastern France and to divert the main blow through Belgium, where French forces would meet and stop the Germans.[22] The Germans were expected to fight costly offensives, whose failures would sap the strength of the Reich, while the French waged a total war with the resources of France, its empire and allies mobilized for the war.[23] Besides the demographic reasons, a defensive strategy served the needs of French diplomacy towards Great Britain.[24] The French imported a third of their coal from Britain and 32 percent of all imports through French ports were carried by British ships.[24] Of French trade, 35 percent was with the British Empire and the majority of the tin, rubber, jute, wool and manganese used by France came from the British Empire.[24]
About 55 percent of overseas imports arrived in France via the Channel ports of Calais, Le Havre, Cherbourg, Boulogne, Dieppe, Saint-Malo and Dunkirk.[24] Germany had to import most of its iron, rubber, oil, bauxite, copper and nickel, making naval blockade a devastating weapon against the German economy.[25] For economic reasons, the success of the strategy of la guerre de longue durée would at very least require Britain to maintain a benevolent neutrality, preferably to enter the war as an ally as British sea power could protect French imports while depriving Germany of hers. A defensive strategy based on the Maginot Line was an excellent way of demonstrating to Britain that France was not an aggressive power and would only to go to war in the event of German aggression, a situation that would make it more likely that Britain would enter the war on France's side.[26]
The line was built in several phases from 1930 by the Service Technique du Génie (STG) overseen by Commission d'Organisation des Régions Fortifiées (CORF). The main construction was largely completed by 1939, at a cost of around 3 billion French francs.[clarification needed] The line stretched from Switzerland to Luxembourg and a much lighter extension was extended to the Strait of Dover after 1934. The original construction did not cover the area chosen by the Germans for their first challenge, which was through the Ardennes in 1940, a plan known as Fall Gelb (Case Yellow), due to the neutrality of Belgium. The location of this attack, because of the Maginot Line, was through the Belgian Ardennes forest (sector 4), which is off the map to the left of Maginot Line sector 6 (as marked).
Manning[edit]
Maginot Line fortifications were manned by specialist units of fortress infantry, artillery and engineers. The infantry manned the lighter weapons of the fortresses, and formed units with the mission of operating outside if necessary. Artillery troops operated the heavy guns and the engineers were responsible for maintaining and operating other specialist equipment, including all communications systems. All these troops wore distinctive uniform insignia and considered themselves among the elite of the French Army. During peacetime, fortresses were only partly manned by full-time troops. They would be supplemented by reservists who lived in the local area, and who could be quickly mobilised in an emergency.[27]
Full-time Maginot Line troops were accommodated in barracks built close by the fortresses. They were also accommodated in complexes of wooden housing adjacent to each fortresses, which were more comfortable than living inside, but which were not expected to survive wartime bombardment.[28]
Training was carried out at a fortress near the town of Bitche, built in a military training area and so capable of live fire exercises. This was impossible elsewhere as the other parts of the line were located in civilian areas.[28]
Organization[edit]
Block 14 at Ouvrage Hochwald in 1940
Side view diagram of the operation of a retractable turret: 75 mm gun of block 3 in Ouvrage Schoenenbourg
Casemate of Dambach Nord, Fortified Sector of the Vosges, Sub-sector of Philippsbourg
Layout of Ouvrage Hackenberg, one of the largest fortress complexes
Although the name "Maginot Line" suggests a rather thin linear fortification, it was quite deep, varying (from the German border to the rear area) from 20–25 kilometres (12–16 miles). It was composed of an intricate system of strong points, fortifications and military facilities such as border guard posts, communications centres, infantry shelters, barricades, artillery, machine gun and anti-tank gun emplacements, supply depots, infrastructure facilities and observation posts. These various structures reinforced a principal line of resistance made up of the most heavily armed ouvrages, which can be roughly translated as fortresses or big defensive works.
From front to rear, (east to west) the line was composed of:
1. Border Post line: This consisted of blockhouses and strong houses, which were often camouflaged as inoffensive residential homes, built within a few metres of the border and manned by troops so as to give the alarm in the event of a surprise attack and to delay enemy tanks with prepared explosives and barricades.
2. Outpost and Support Point line: Approximately 5 km (3 mi) behind the border, a line of anti-tank blockhouses that were intended to provide resistance to armoured assault, sufficient to delay the enemy so as to allow the crews of the C.O.R.F. ouvrages to be ready at their battle stations. These outposts covered the main passages within the principal line.
3. Principal line of resistance: This line began 10 km (6 mi) behind the border. It was preceded by anti-tank obstacles made of metal rails planted vertically in six rows, with heights varying from 0.70–1.40 metres (2 ft 4 in–4 ft 7 in) and buried to a depth of 2 m (6 ft 7 in). These anti-tank obstacles extended from end to end in front of the main works, over hundreds of kilometers, interrupted only by extremely dense forests, rivers, or other nearly impassable terrain.
The anti-tank obstacle system was followed by an anti-personnel obstacle system made primarily of dense barbed wire. Anti-tank road barriers also made it possible to block roads at necessary points of passage through the tank obstacles.
4. Infantry Casemates: These bunkers were armed with twin machine-guns (abbreviated as JM — Jumelage de mitrailleuses — in French) and anti-tank guns of 37 or 47 mm (1.5 or 1.9 in). They could be single (with a firing room in one direction) or double (two firing rooms, in opposite directions). These generally had two floors, with a firing level and a support/infrastructure level that provided the troops with rest and services (power generating units, reserves of water, fuel, food, ventilation equipment, etc.). The infantry casemates often had one or two "cloches" or turrets located on top of them. These GFM cloches were sometimes used to emplace machine guns or observation periscopes. They were manned by 20 to 30 men.
5. Petits ouvrages: These small fortresses reinforced the line of infantry bunkers. The petits ouvrages were generally made up of several infantry bunkers, connected by an underground tunnel network with attached underground facilities, such as barracks, electric generators, ventilation systems, mess halls, infirmaries and supply caches. Their crew consisted of between 100 and 200 men.
6. Gros Ouvrages: These fortresses were the most important fortifications on the Maginot Line, having the sturdiest construction and the heaviest artillery. These were composed of at least six "forward bunker systems" or "combat blocks", as well as two entrances, and were connected via a network of underground tunnels that often featured narrow gauge electric railways for transport between bunker systems. The blocks contained infrastructure such as power stations, independent ventilating systems, barracks and mess halls, kitchens, water storage and distribution systems, hoists, ammunition stores, workshops and stores of spare parts and food. Their crews ranged from 500 to more than 1,000 men.
Blockhouse MOM (Main d'Oeuvre Militaire) de Richtolsheim – Secteur Fortifié de Colmar – Sous secteur de Hilsenheim
7. Observation Posts were located on hills that provided a good view of the surrounding area. Their purpose was to locate the enemy and direct and correct the indirect fire of artillery as well as to report on the progress and position of key enemy units. These are large reinforced buried concrete bunkers, equipped with armoured turrets containing high-precision optics, connected with the other fortifications by field telephone and wireless transmitters (known in French by the acronym T.S.F., Télégraphie Sans Fils).
8. Telephone Network: This system connected every fortification in the Maginot Line, including bunkers, infantry and artillery fortresses, observation posts and shelters. Two telephone wires were placed parallel to the line of fortifications, providing redundancy in the event of a wire getting cut. There were places along the cable where dismounted soldiers could connect to the network.
9. Infantry Reserve Shelters: These were found from 500–1,000 m (1,600–3,300 ft) behind the principal line of resistance. These were buried concrete bunkers designed to house and shelter up to a company of infantry (200 to 250 men) and had such features as electric generators, ventilation systems, water supplies, kitchens and heating, which allowed their occupants to hold out in the event of an attack. They could also be used as a local headquarters and as a base for counter-attacks.
Anti-tank rails around casemate 9 of the Hochwald ditch
10. Flood Zones were natural basins or rivers that could be flooded on demand and thus constitute an additional obstacle in the event of an enemy offensive.
11. Safety Quarters were built near the major fortifications so fortress (ouvrage) crews could reach their battle stations in the shortest possible time in the event of a surprise attack during peacetime.
12. Supply depots.
13. Ammunition dumps.
14. Narrow Gauge Railway System: A network of 600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in) narrow gauge railways was built so as to rearm and resupply the main fortresses (ouvrages) from supply depots up to 50 km (31 mi) away. Petrol-engined armoured locomotives pulled supply trains along these narrow-gauge lines. (A similar system was developed with armored steam engines back in 1914–1918.)
15. High-voltage Transmission Lines, initially above-ground but then buried, and connected to the civil power grid, provided electric power to the many fortifications and fortresses.
16. Heavy rail artillery was hauled in by locomotives to planned locations to support the emplaced artillery located in the fortresses, which was intentionally limited in range to 10–12 km (6–7 mi).
Inventory[edit]
Ouvrages[edit]
There are 142 ouvrages, 352 casemates, 78 shelters, 17 observatories and around 5,000 blockhouses in the Maginot Line.[29]
Armoured cloches[edit]
There are several kinds of armoured cloches. The word cloche is a French term meaning bell due to its shape. All cloches were made in an alloy steel. Cloches are non-retractable turrets.
The most widespread are the GFM cloches, where GFM means Guetteur fusil-mitrailleur (machine-gun sentry). They are composed of three to four openings, called crenels or embrasures. These crenels may be equipped as follows: Rifle machine-gun, direct vision block, binoculars block or 50 mm (2.0 in) mortar. Sometimes, the cloche is topped by a periscope. There are 1,118 GFM cloches on the line. Almost every block, casemate and shelter is topped by one or two GFM cloches.
The JM cloches (jumelage de mitrailleuses or "twin machine-guns") are the same as the GFM cloches except that they have one opening equipped with a pair of machine-guns. There are 174 JM cloches on the line.
There are 72 AM cloches (armes mixtes or "mixed weapons") on the line, equipped with a pair of machine guns and a 25 mm (1.0 in) anti-tank gun. Some GFM cloches were transformed into AM cloches in 1934. (The aforementioned total does not include these modified cloches.)
There are 75 LG cloches (lance-grenade or "grenade launcher") on the line. Those cloches are almost completely covered by concrete, with only a small hole to launch grenades through for local defence.
There are 20 VP cloches (vision périscopique or "periscopic vision") on the line. These cloches could be equipped with several different periscopes. Like the LG cloches, they were almost completely covered by concrete.
The VDP cloches (vision directe et périscopique or "direct and periscopic vision") are similar to the VP cloches, but have two or three openings to provide a direct view. Consequently, they were not covered by concrete.
GFM cloche
JM cloche
AM cloche
LG cloche
VP cloche
VDP cloche
Retractable turrets[edit]
The line included the following retractable turrets.
21 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1933
12 turrets of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1932
1 turret of 75 mm (3.0 in) model 1905
17 turrets of 135 mm (5.3 in)
21 turrets of 81 mm (3.2 in)
12 turrets for mixed weapons (AM)
7 turrets for mixed weapons + mortar of 50 mm (2.0 in)
61 turrets of machine-guns
75 mm (3.0 in) Turret model 1932
135 mm (5.3 in) Turret
81 mm (3.2 in) Turret
Machine-gun Turret
AM (Mixed-Weapons) Turret
Artillery[edit]
Both static and mobile artillery units were assigned to defend the Maginot Line. Régiments d’ artillerie de position (RAP) consisted of static artillery units. Régiments d’ artillerie mobile de forteresse (RAMF) consisted of mobile artillery.[30]
Anti-tank guns[edit]
Canon de 25mm SA Mle1934
SA-L Mle1937 (Puteaux) L/72
Features[edit]
81 mm (3.2 in) mortar
The specification of the defenses was very high, with extensive and interconnected bunker complexes for thousands of men; there were 45 main forts (grands ouvrages) at intervals of 15 km (9.3 mi), 97 smaller forts (petits ouvrages) and 352 casemates between, with over 100 km (62 mi) of tunnels. Artillery was coordinated with protective measures to ensure that one fort could support the next in line by bombarding it directly without harm. The largest guns were therefore 135 mm (5.3 in) fortress guns; larger weapons were to be part of the mobile forces and were to be deployed behind the lines.
The fortifications did not extend through the Ardennes Forest (which was believed to be impenetrable by Commander-in-Chief Maurice Gamelin) or along France's border with Belgium, because the two countries had signed an alliance in 1920, by which the French army would operate in Belgium if the German forces invaded. However, after France had failed to counter Germany's remilitarisation of the Rhineland, Belgium—thinking that France was not a reliable ally—abrogated the treaty in 1936 and declared neutrality. France quickly extended the Maginot Line along the Franco-Belgian border, but not to the standard of the rest of the line. As the water table in this region is high, there was the danger of underground passages getting flooded, which the designers of the line knew would be difficult and expensive to overcome.
In 1939 US Army officer Kenneth Nichols visited the Metz sector, where he was impressed by the formidable formations which he thought the Germans would have to outflank by driving through Belgium. In discussion with General Brousseau the commander of the Metz sector and other officers, the general outlined the French problem in extending the line to the sea in that placing the line along the Belgian-German border required the agreement of Belgium, but putting the line along the French-Belgian border relinquished Belgium to the Germans. Another complication was Holland, and the various governments never resolved their problems.[31]
Corridor inside the Fort Saint-Gobain near Modane in the Alps. The Decauville
When the British Expeditionary Force landed in France in September 1939, they and the French reinforced and extended the Maginot line to the sea in a flurry of construction from 1939–1940 accompanied by general improvements all along the line. The final line was strongest around the industrial regions of Metz, Lauter and Alsace, while other areas were in comparison only weakly guarded. In contrast, the propaganda about the line made it appear far greater a construction than it was; illustrations showed multiple stories of interwoven passages and even underground railyards and cinemas. This reassured Allied civilians.
Czechoslovak connection[edit]
Czechoslovakia was also in fear of Hitler and began building its own defenses. As an ally of France, they were able to get advice on the Maginot design and apply it to Czechoslovak border fortifications. The design of the casemates is similar to the ones found in the southern part of the Maginot Line and photographs of them are often confused with Maginot forts. Following the Munich Agreement and the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, the Germans were able to use the Czech fortifications to plan attacks that proved successful against the western fortifications (the Belgian Fort Eben-Emael is the best known example).
German invasion in World War II[edit]
[show]
v
t
e
Battle of France
Battle of France
Royal Marine
Ardennes
Sedan
Montcornet
Saumur
Maginot Line
Weygand Plan
Montcornet
Arras
Boulogne
Calais
Dunkirk
Wormhoudt
Dynamo
Abbeville
Lille
Paula
Alps
Fall Rot
Cycle
Ariel
Fall Braun
Battle of the Netherlands
Maastricht
The Hague
Rotterdam
Zeeland
The Grebbeberg
Afsluitdijk
Rotterdam Blitz
Battle of Belgium
Fort Eben-Emael
KW Line
Dyle Plan
Hannut
Gembloux
Canal
Lys
Invasion of Luxembourg
Schuster Line
Combat block 1 at the fortress Limeiln (ouvrage Four-à-Chaux, Alsace), showing signs of German testing of explosives inside some fortresses between 1942 and 1944
The World War II German invasion plan of 1940 (Sichelschnitt) was designed to deal with the line. A decoy force sat opposite the line while a second Army Group cut through the Low Countries of Belgium and the Netherlands, as well as through the Ardennes Forest, which lay north of the main French defences. Thus the Germans were able to avoid a direct assault on the Maginot Line by violating the neutrality of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. Attacking on 10 May, German forces were well into France within five days and they continued to advance until 24 May, when they stopped near Dunkirk.
During the advance to the English Channel, the Germans overran France's border defence with Belgium and several Maginot Forts in the Maubeuge area, whilst the Luftwaffe simply flew over it. On 19 May, the German 16th Army successfully captured the isolated petit ouvrage La Ferté (southeast of Sedan) after conducting a deliberate assault by combat engineers backed up by heavy artillery. The entire French crew of 107 soldiers was killed during the action. On 14 June 1940, the day Paris fell, the German 1st Army went over to the offensive in "Operation Tiger" and attacked the Maginot Line between St. Avold and Saarbrücken. The Germans then broke through the fortification line as defending French forces retreated southward. In the following days, infantry divisions of the 1st Army attacked fortifications on each side of the penetration; successfully capturing four petits ouvrages. The 1st Army also conducted two attacks against the Maginot Line further to the east in northern Alsace. One attack successfully broke through a weak section of the line in the Vosges Mountains, but a second attack was stopped by the French defenders near Wissembourg. On 15 June, infantry divisions of the German 7th Army attacked across the Rhine River in Operation "Small Bear", penetrating the defences deep and capturing the cities of Colmar and Strasbourg.
By early June the German forces had cut off the line from the rest of France and the French government was making overtures for an armistice, which was signed on 22 June in Compiègne. As the line was surrounded, the German Army attacked a few ouvrages from the rear, but were unsuccessful in capturing any significant fortifications. The main fortifications of the line were still mostly intact, a number of commanders were prepared to hold out, and the Italian advance had been successfully contained. Nevertheless, Maxime Weygand signed the surrender instrument and the army was ordered out of their fortifications, to be taken to POW camps.
When the Allied forces invaded in June 1944, the line, now held by German defenders, was again largely bypassed; fighting touched only portions of the fortifications near Metz and in northern Alsace towards the end of 1944. During the German offensive Operation Nordwind in January 1945, Maginot Line casemates and fortifications were utilized by Allied forces, especially in the region of Hatten-Rittershoffen, and some German units had been supplemented with flamethrower tanks in anticipation of this possibility.[32] Stephen Ambrose wrote that in January 1945 "a part of the line was used for the purpose it had been designed for and showed what a superb fortification it was." Here the Line ran east-west, around the villages of Rittershoffen and Hatten, south of Wissembourg.[33]
After World War II[edit]
The view from a battery at Ouvrage Schoenenbourg in Alsace. A retractable turret is in the left foreground.
After the war the line was re-manned by the French and underwent some modifications. With the rise of the French independent nuclear weapons by 1960 the line became an expensive anachronism. Some of the larger ouvrages were converted to command centres. When France withdrew from NATO's military component (in 1966) much of the line was abandoned, with the NATO facilities turned back over to French forces and the rest of it auctioned-off to the public or left to decay.[34] A number of old fortifications have now been turned into wine cellars, a mushroom farm and even a disco. Besides that, a few private houses are built atop some of the blockhouses.[35]
The view of the village of Lembach in Alsace (north-east), taken from the combat unit number 5 of the fortress ouvrage Four-à-Chaux
Ouvrage Rochonvillers was retained by the French Army as a command centre into the 1990s, but was deactivated following the disappearance of the Soviet threat. Ouvrage Hochwald is the only facility in the main line that remains in active service, as a hardened command facility for the French Air Force known as Drachenbronn Air Base.
In 1968 when scouting locations for On Her Majesty's Secret Service, producer Harry Saltzman used his French contacts to gain permission to use portions of the Maginot Line as SPECTRE headquarters in the film. Saltzman provided art director Syd Cain with a tour of the complex, but Cain said that not only would the location be difficult to light and film inside, but that artificial sets could be constructed at the studios for a fraction of the cost.[36] The idea was shelved.
Post-war assessment[edit]
Historians J.E. Kaufmann and H.W. Kaufmann note that prior to construction, in October 1927, the Superior Council of War adopted the final design for the Maginot Line and identified that one of the main missions would be to deter a German cross-border assault with only minimal force thus allowing "the army time to mobilize."[37] They note that André Maginot's efforts to "focus the public's attention on the work being done, emphasizing the role and nature of the line" resulted in "the media exaggerat[ing] his descriptions, turning the line into an impregnable fortified position that would seal the frontier, thus creating a false sense of security that later contributed to the development of the "Maginot mentality"".[38] Starting in 1931, the French military drew up plans that foresaw the deployment of the French military into Belgium to counter German attacks, which were anticipated to be a repeat Schlieffen Plan (the German the First World War offensive through Belgium).[39] Rather than the Maginot Line contributing to the French defeat, they argue that the dispersion of French forces, faulty doctrine, the loss of command, control, and communications, coupled with faulty intelligence of grossly exaggerated German tank and troop numbers all contributed to the French military defeat.[40] They conclude "When all is said and done, the Maginot Line did not fail to accomplish its original mission, neither on the Northeast nor the Southeast Front. It provided a shield that bought time for the army to mobilize. In the case of the Northeast, the fortifications allowed the French army to concentrate its best troops along the Belgian border to engage the enemy. When the army failed in its encounter with the Germans, the Maginot Line covered the retreat before the advancing German armies."[41] They further highlight that "The victory on the Alpine front ... demonstrated the effectiveness of the fortifications of the Maginot Line when properly employed."[42]
Historian Julian Jackson commented "It has often been alleged that the Maginot Line contributed to France's defeat by making the military too complacent and defence-minded. Such accusations are unfounded." He continues "Its purpose was to free manpower for offensive operations elsewhere ... and to protect the forces of manoeuvre." The latter included a more mechanized and modernized military, with a strategy "based on the idea of forward defence in Belgium",[43] as the French believed the Germans would launch a repeat of their First World War battleplan.[44] "Having set up positions in Belgium, the army would prepare for the offensive which would ultimately win the war."[45] Jackson indicates "the French military's slowness to read the direction of the German attack" and "their incapacity to grasp the nature and speed of warfare as practiced by the Germans" as the reasons for their defeat.[46]
Ariel Ilan Roth commented "The purpose of the Maginot line was not, as popular myth would later have it, to make France invulnerable." Instead, it was constructed "to make the appeal of flanking them far outweigh the appeal of attacking them head on." Roth noted that French strategy was to rush its army into Belgium were one of two possibilities would take place: "either there would be a decisive battle in which France might win, or, more likely, a front would develop and stabilize". The latter meant the next war's destructive consequences would not take place on French soil.[47] Roth noted that "The Germans did not accommodate French plans" of meeting for the decisive battle in Belgium, which resulted in their defeat.[48]
Marc Romanych and Martin Rupp argue that the "employment of the Maginot Line was a series of poor decisions and missed opportunities." They highlight that, despite its purpose of conserving manpower, that "about 20 per cent of [France's] field divisions remained inactive along the Maginot Line" while Belgium was overran and the British and portions of French troops evacuated at Dunkirk. They argue, had the reserves held behind the line, been moved north "it is possible that Heeresgruppe A's advance could have been blunted, giving time for Groupe d'armees 1 to reorganize".[49] On the other hand, they note that other than the loss of insignificant fortifications due to insufficient defending troops, the fortifications and "fortress troops withstood the test of battle", repulsed numerous attacks, and "withstood intense aerial and artillery bombardment."[50]
Clayton Donnell commented "If one believes the Maginot Line was built for the primary purpose of stopping a German invasion of France, most will consider it a massive failure and a waste of money ... in reality, the line was not built to be the ultimate savior of France, although too many Frenchmen at the time believed it to be so, thus giving them a very false sense of security... . Rather, it was assigned a series of minor yet crucial roles, all of which were fulfilled."[51] Highlighting these roles, Donnell commented "The primary role of the line was to prevent a concerted attack on France through the traditional invasion routes and to permit time for the mobilization of troops. This mission was fulfilled. Second, in case of an enemy invasion it would allow the French to fight on favorable terrain and to force the enemy to skirt the line and move through Belgium ..." Donnell notes that the French played into the Germans' hand, rather than using the line as the basis for an offensive.[52]
Due to its enormous cost, and its failure to prevent German forces from invading France, postwar journalists and political commentators remain divided on whether the Maginot line was worthwhile.[53][54]
See also[edit]
World War II portal
Atlantic Wall
Czechoslovak border fortifications
List of Alpine Line ouvrages (works)
List of Maginot Line ouvrages (works)
Metaxas Line
Siegfried Line
Commission for Organising the Fortified Regions (CORF)
Notes[edit]
Jump up ^ Gravett, Christopher (2007). The History of Castles: Fortifications Around the World. Globe Pequot (via Google Books). p. 187. ISBN 1599211106. Retrieved 19 April 2013.
Jump up ^ Winston, Churchill. The Second World War. 2. HoughtonMifflin. ISBN 0395410568.
Jump up ^ Chelminski, Rudolph (June 1997). "The Maginot Line" (PDF). Smithsonian: 90–100. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 December 2007. Retrieved 26 June 2012.
Jump up ^ Higham, p. 126
Jump up ^ Roth, p. 6
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. Introduction
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 5
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 122
Jump up ^ Roth, p. 6
Jump up ^ Romanych and Rupp, p. 8
Jump up ^ Sally Marks, "The Myths of Reparations" pages 231-255 from Central European History, Volume 11, Issue # 3 1978 page 249.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 20.
Jump up ^ Smith, Leonard; Audoin-Rouzeau, Steéphane, & Becker, Annette France and the Great War, 1914–1918, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003 page 11
Jump up ^ Keylor, William The Twentieth-Century World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 page 121
^ Jump up to: a b c Keylor, William The Twentieth-Century World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 pages 121-122
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j k l Keylor, William The Twentieth-Century World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 page 122
^ Jump up to: a b Keylor, William The Twentieth-Century World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001 page 123
^ Jump up to: a b Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 13.
Jump up ^ Frieser, Karl-Heinz (2005). The Blitzkrieg Legend. Naval Institute Press. p. 88. ISBN 978-1-59114-294-2.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 36.
^ Jump up to: a b c Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 35.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 pages 35–36.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 37.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 40.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 page 33.
Jump up ^ Young, Robert An Uncertain Idea of France, New York: Peter Lang, 2005 pages 40–41.
Jump up ^ Allcorn (2003), p.43
^ Jump up to: a b Allcorn (2003), p.44
Jump up ^ There are 58 ouvrages, 311 casemates, 78 shelters, 14 observatories and around 4,000 blockhouses on the North-West and 84 ouvrages, 41 casemates, three observatories and around 1,000 blockhouses to the South-West.
Jump up ^ Romanych, Rupp, Marc, Martin (2010). Maginot Line 1940: Battles on the French Frontier. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. p. 19. ISBN 978-1846034992.
Jump up ^ Nichols, Kenneth D. (1987). The Road to Trinity: A Personal Account of How America’s Nuclear Policies Were Made. New York: William Morrow and Company. ISBN 0-688-06910-X.
Jump up ^ Zaloga, Steven J. (June 2010). Operation Nordwind 1945: Hitler's Last Offensive in the West. Osprey Publishing. 96 pages; ISBN 978-1-84603-683-5.[page needed]
Jump up ^ Ambrose, Stephen Citizen Soldiers: The US Army from the Normandy Beaches to the (Bulge to the) Surrender of Germany, New York: Simon & Schuster (1997) p386 ISBN 0-684-81525-7 (hb) & 978-1-4711-5833-9 (pb)
Jump up ^ Seramour, Michaël. "Histoire de la Ligne Maginot de 1945 à nos jours" (in French). Revue Historique des Armées. pp. 86–97. Retrieved 19 February 2010.
Jump up ^ Chelminski, Rudolph (June 1997, abstract). "The Maginot Line – It Is Known as a Great Military Blunder, But in Fact This Stout Network of Ingenious Bunkers Did What It Was Designed to Do". Smithsonian. Retrieved 17 March 2013.
Jump up ^ Cain, Syd (2005). Not Forgetting James Bond. Richmond: Reynolds and Hearn. ISBN 978-1-905-28703-1.[page needed]
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 14
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 15
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), pp. 4, 85-86, 88
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), pp. 153, 157, 160
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 182
Jump up ^ Kaufmann and Kaufmann (2006), p. 180
Jump up ^ Jackson, p. 27
Jump up ^ Jackson, p. 26
Jump up ^ Jackson, p. 27
Jump up ^ Jackson, p. 221
Jump up ^ Roth, p. 6
Jump up ^ Roth, p. 7
Jump up ^ Romanych and Rupp, p. 91
Jump up ^ Romanych and Rupp, pp. 91-92
Jump up ^ Donnell, p. 4
Jump up ^ Donnell, p. 45
Jump up ^ Haynes, Gavin (25 October 2017). "What's the stupidest thing a nation has ever done?". Theguardian.com. Retrieved 25 October 2017.
Jump up ^ "Opinion - The difficult truths behind ‘Dunkirk’". The Washington Post. Retrieved 25 October 2017.
References[edit]
Allcorn, William. The Maginot Line 1928–45. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2003. ISBN 1-84176-646-1.
Donnell, Clayton (2017). Maginot Line Gun Turrets: And French Gun Turret Development 1880–1940. New Vanguard. Oxford: Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-47282-029-7.
Jackson, Julian (2003). The Fall of France: The Nazi Invasion of 1940. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-192-80550-8.
Kaufmann, J.E. and Kaufmann, H.W. Fortress France: The Maginot Line and French Defenses in World War II, Stackpole Books, 2006. ISBN 0-275-98345-5.
Kaufmann, J.E., Kaufmann, H.W., Jancovič-Potočnik, A. and Lang, P. The Maginot Line: History and Guide, Pen and Sword, 2011. ISBN 978-1-84884-068-3.
Mary, Jean-Yves; Hohnadel, Alain; Sicard, Jacques. Hommes et Ouvrages de la Ligne Maginot, Tome 1. (Men and Works of the Maginot Line). Paris, Histoire & Collections, 2001. ISBN 2-908182-88-2. (in French)
Mary, Jean-Yves; Hohnadel, Alain; Sicard, Jacques. Hommes et Ouvrages de la Ligne Maginot, Tome 2. Paris, Histoire & Collections, 2003. ISBN 2-908182-97-1. (in French)
Mary, Jean-Yves; Hohnadel, Alain; Sicard, Jacques. Hommes et Ouvrages de la Ligne Maginot, Tome 3. Paris, Histoire & Collections, 2003. ISBN 2-913903-88-6. (in French)
Mary, Jean-Yves; Hohnadel, Alain; Sicard, Jacques. Hommes et Ouvrages de la Ligne Maginot, Tome 4 – La fortification alpine. Paris, Histoire & Collections, 2009. ISBN 978-2-915239-46-1. (in French)
Mary, Jean-Yves; Hohnadel, Alain; Sicard, Jacques. Hommes et Ouvrages de la Ligne Maginot, Tome 5. Paris, Histoire & Collections, 2009. ISBN 978-2-35250-127-5. (in French)
Romanych, Marc; Rupp, Martin. Maginot Line 1940: Battles on the French Frontier. Oxford: Osprey, 2010. ISBN 978-1846034992.
Roth, Ariel Ilan (2010). Leadership in International Relations: The Balance of Power and the Origins of World War II. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 978-0-230-10690-1.
Further reading[edit]
Rowe, V. (1959). The Great Wall of France: The Triumph of the Maginot Line (1st ed.). London: Putnam. OCLC 773604722.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Maginot Line.
(in French) The Maginot Line (French/English/German/Italian)
(in French) Fortress of Schoenenbourg, (French/English/German/Italian)
The U.S. Army vs. The Maginot Line by Bryan J. Dickerson
Maginot Line today
(in Czech) Armament of Maginot Line (Czech only)
[show]
v
t
e
Maginot Line Ouvrages
Fortified Sector of the Escaut
Eth
Fortified Sector of Maubeuge
Les Sarts
Bersillies
La Salmagne
Boussois
Fortified Sector of Montmédy
La Ferté
Chesnois
Thonnelle
Vélosnes
Fortified Sector of the Crusnes
Ferme Chappy
Fermont
Latiremont
Mauvais-Bois
Bois-du-Four
Bréhain
Aumetz
Fortified Sector of Thionville
Rochonvillers
Molvange
Immerhof
Soetrich
Bois-Karre
Kobenbusch
Oberheid
Galgenberg
Sentzich
Métrich
Billig
Fortified Sector of Boulay
Hackenberg
Coucou
Mont des Welches
Michelsberg
Hobling
Bousse
Anzeling
Berenbach
Bovenberg
Denting
Village Coume
Coume Annexe Nord
Coume
Coume Annexe Sud
Mottenberg
Fortified Sector of Faulquemont
Kerfent
Bambesch
Einseling
Laudrefang
Ouvrage Téting
Fortified Sector of the Sarre
Haut-Poirier
Fortified Sector of Rohrbach
Welschhof
Rohrbach
Simserhof
Schiesseck
Otterbiel
Fortified Sector of the Vosges
Grand-Hohékirkel
Lembach
Four-à-Chaux
Fortified Sector of Haguenau
Hochwald
Schoenenbourg
Petit Maginot Line
Alpine Line
Corsica
Defensive Organization of Corsica
'
Authority control
WorldCat Identities
VIAF: 244107292
GND: 4099996-8
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maginot_Line&oldid=807217907"
Categories:
Maginot Line
World War II defensive lines
Historic defensive lines
Tunnel warfare
Separation barriers
20th-century fortifications
Hidden categories:
Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from March 2013
CS1 French-language sources (fr)
Articles lacking in-text citations from December 2010
All articles lacking in-text citations
Use dmy dates from July 2012
Use British English from March 2013
Articles containing French-language text
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from February 2011
Articles with French-language external links
Articles with Czech-language external links
Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Azərbaycanca
Беларуская
Беларуская (тарашкевіца)
Български
Bosanski
Català
Чӑвашла
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
עברית
ქართული
Latina
Latviešu
Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuvių
Magyar
Bahasa Melayu
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
پنجابی
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
සිංහල
Simple English
Slovenčina
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
தமிழ்
Türkçe
Українська
Vèneto
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
粵語
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 26 October 2017, at 17:15.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

value: mw-page-base noprint

value: mw-head-base noprint

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

tag: i

tag: small

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-More_footnotes

value: Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)

value:
/wiki/Minister_of_Defense_(France)
mw-redirect
Minister of Defense (France)

value:
/wiki/Locarno_Conference
mw-redirect
Locarno Conference

value:
/wiki/Ardennes_forest
mw-redirect
Ardennes forest

value:
/wiki/Lorraine_(province)
mw-redirect
Lorraine (province)

value:
/wiki/Henri_Philippe_P%C3%A9tain
mw-redirect
Henri Philippe Pétain

value: Edit section: 1927: Allied Control Commission abolished

value: Edit section: German economic superiority

value: see "Cost of construction" section on the talk page (February 2011)

value:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

value:
/wiki/Narrow_gauge_railway
mw-redirect
Narrow gauge railway

value:
gallery mw-gallery-traditional
max-width: 978px;_width: 978px;

value:
gallery mw-gallery-traditional
max-width: 815px;_width: 815px;

value: British Expeditionary Force (World War II)

value: Edit section: German invasion in World War II

value: Template talk:Campaignbox Battle of France

value:
/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz
mw-redirect
Rotterdam Blitz

value:
/wiki/Battle_of_the_Ypres-Comines_Canal
mw-redirect
Battle of the Ypres-Comines Canal

value:
/wiki/Invasion_of_Luxembourg
mw-redirect
Invasion of Luxembourg

value: nowraplinks collapsible collapsed navbox-inner

value:
/wiki/Dunkirk,_France
mw-redirect
Dunkirk, France

value:
/wiki/Vosges_Mountains
mw-redirect
Vosges Mountains

value:
/wiki/Stephen_Ambrose
mw-redirect
Stephen Ambrose

value:
/wiki/Force_de_frappe
mw-redirect
Force de frappe

value:
/wiki/Nuclear_weapons
mw-redirect
Nuclear weapons

value: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

value: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

value:
/wiki/Naval_Institute_Press
mw-redirect
Naval Institute Press

value: This citation requires a reference to the specific page or range of pages in which the material appears. (March 2013)

value:
nofollow
external text
http://rha.revues.org/index1933.html

value: Reynolds and Hearn (page does not exist)

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/oclc/773604722

value:
nofollow
http://www.lignemaginot.fr/
external text

value:
nofollow
http://www.lignemaginot.com/
external text

value:
nofollow
external text
http://thetunnel.free.fr/maginot-e.html

value:
/wiki/Maginot_line
mw-redirect
Maginot line

value: col navbox-title 2 background:lightsteelblue;

value:
nofollow
external text
https://viaf.org/viaf/244107292

value:
nofollow
external text
http://d-nb.info/gnd/4099996-8

value: Category:Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from March 2013

value: Category:CS1 French-language sources (fr)

value: Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from December 2010

value: Category:All articles lacking in-text citations

value: Category:Use British English from March 2013

value: Category:Articles containing French-language text

value: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from February 2011

value: Category:Articles with French-language external links

value: Category:Articles with Czech-language external links

value: Category:Wikipedia articles with VIAF identifiers

value: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Maginot_Line
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

value: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

value:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

value: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

value: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

value:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

value:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

value:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

value: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

value: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

value: خط ماجينو – Arabic

value: Лінія Мажыно – Belarusian

value: Лінія Мажыно – Belarusian (Taraškievica orthography)

value: Линия „Мажино“ – Bulgarian

value: Мажино йĕрĕ – Chuvash

value: Γραμμή Μαζινό – Greek

value: خط دفاعی ماژینو – Persian

value: Մաժինոյի գիծ – Armenian

value: קו מאז'ינו – Hebrew

value: მაჟინოს ხაზი – Georgian

value: میجینو بچاؤ کند – Western Punjabi

value: Линия Мажино – Russian

value: මැජිනො රේඛාව – Sinhala

value: Мажино линија – Serbian

value: interlanguage-link interwiki-sv badge-Q17437798 badge-goodarticle

value: மசினோ கோடு – Tamil

value: Лінія Мажино – Ukrainian

value: מאזשינא ליניע – Yiddish

value: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

value: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

value:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Maginot_Line rootpage-Maginot_Line vector-experimental-print-styles vector-nav-directionality skin-vector action-view


text:
Role
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the sociology term. For the performing arts term, see Character (arts).
For other uses, see Role (disambiguation).
This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (April 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
A role (also rôle or social role) is a set of connected behaviors, rights, obligations, beliefs, and norms as conceptualized by people in a social situation. It is an expected or free or continuously changing behaviour and may have a given individual social status or social position. It is vital to both functionalist and interactionist understandings of society. Social role posits the following about social behaviour:
The division of labour in society takes the form of the interaction among heterogeneous specialised positions, we call roles.
Social roles included appropriate and permitted forms of behaviour, guided by social norms, which are commonly known and hence determine the expectations for appropriate behaviour in these roles.
Roles are occupied by individuals, who are called actors.
When individuals approve of a social role (i.e., they consider the role legitimate and constructive), they will incur costs to conform to role norms, and will also incur costs to punish those who violate role norms.
Changed conditions can render a social role outdated or illegitimate, in which case social pressures are likely to lead to role change.
The anticipation of rewards and punishments, as well as the satisfaction of behaving prosocially, account for why agents conform to role requirements.
The notion of the role is examined in the social sciences, more specifically economics, sociology and organisation theory.
Contents
[hide]
1 Determinants and characteristics
2 Role theory
2.1 Role in functionalist and consensus theory
2.2 Role in interactionist or social action theory
2.3 Social norms theory
2.3.1 The theory of planned behaviour
2.3.2 Team role theory
3 Role conflict and role confusion
4 Role enhancement
5 Documenting roles
6 See also
7 References
8 Bibliography
Determinants and characteristics[edit]
Roles may be achieved or ascribed or they can be accidental in different situations. An achieved role is a position that a person assumes voluntarily which reflects personal skills, abilities, and effort. An ascribed role is a position assigned to individuals or groups without regard for merit but because of certain traits beyond their control, (Stark 2007), and is usually forced upon a person.
Roles can be semi-permanent ("doctor", "mother", "child"), or they can be transitory. A well-known example is the sick role as formulated by Talcott Parsons in the late 1940s. In the transitory "sick role", a person is exempted from their usual roles, but is expected to conform to transitory behavioural standards, such as following doctors' orders and trying to recover.
For many roles, individuals must meet certain conditions, biological or sociological. For instance, a boy cannot ordinarily take the biological role of mother. Other roles require training or experience. For instance, in many cultures doctors must be educated and certified before practising medicine.
Role development can be influenced by a number of additional factors, including social, genetic predisposition, cultural or situational.
Societal influence: The structure of society often forms individuals into certain roles based on the social situations they choose to experience. Parents enrolling their children in certain programs at a young age increases the chance that the child will follow that role.
Genetic predisposition: People take on roles that come naturally to them. Those with athletic ability generally take on roles of athletes. Those with mental genius often take on roles devoted to education and knowledge. This does not mean that people must choose only one path, each individual can reprise multiple roles (i.e. Evelyn can be the point guard on the basketball team and the editor of her school newspaper).
Cultural influence: Different cultures place different values on certain roles based on their lifestyle. For instance, soccer players are regarded higher in European countries than in the United States, where soccer is less popular.
Situational influence: Roles can be created or altered based on the situation a person is put in outside their own influence.
Roles are also frequently interconnected in a role set, that complement of role-relationships in which persons are involved by virtue of occupying a particular social status (Merton 1957). For example, a high school football player carries the roles of student, athlete, classmate, etc.
Role theory[edit]
Main article: Role theory
Role theory is the sociological study of role development, concerned with explaining what forces cause people to develop the expectations of their own and others' behaviours.[1] According to sociologist Bruce Biddle (1986), the five major models of role theory include:[1]
Functional Role Theory, which examines role development as shared social norms for a given social position,
Symbolic Interactionist Role Theory, which examines role development as the outcome of individual interpretation of responses to behaviour,
Structural Role Theory, which emphasises the influence of society rather than the individual in roles and utilises mathematical models,
Organizational Role Theory, which examines role development in organisations, and
Cognitive Role Theory, which is summarised by Flynn and Lemay as "the relationship between expectations and behaviours"[2]
Role in functionalist and consensus theory[edit]
The functionalist approach to role theory, which is largely borrowed from anthropology, sees a "role" as the set of expectations that society places on an individual. By unspoken consensus, certain behaviours are deemed "appropriate" and others "inappropriate". For example, an appropriate doctor dresses fairly conservatively, asks a series of personal questions about one's health, touches one in ways that would normally be forbidden, writes prescriptions, and shows more concern for the personal wellbeing of his or her clients than is expected of, say, an electrician or a shopkeeper.
"Role" is what the doctor does (or, at least, is expected to do) while status is what the doctor is; in other words, "status" is the position an actor occupies, while "role" is the expected behaviour attached to that position. Roles are not limited to occupational status, of course, nor does the fact that one is cast in the role of "doctor" during working hours prevent one from taking on other roles at other times: husband/wife, friend, father/mother, and so on.
Role in interactionist or social action theory[edit]
In interactionist social theory, the concept of role is crucial. The interactionist definition of "role" pre-dates the functionalist one. A role, in this conception, is not fixed or prescribed but something that is constantly negotiated between individuals in a tentative, creative way. Philosopher George Herbert Mead explored roles in his seminal 1934 work, Mind, self and society.[3] Mead's main interest was the way in which children learn how to become a part of society by imaginative role-taking, observing and mimicking others. This is always done in an interactive way: it's not meaningful to think of a role for one person alone, only for that person as an individual who is both co-operating and competing with others. Adults behave similarly: taking roles from those that they see around them, adapting them in creative ways, and (by the process of social interaction) testing them and either confirming them or modifying them. This can be most easily seen in encounters where there is considerable ambiguity, but is nevertheless something that is part of all social interactions: each individual actively tries to "define the situation" (understand their role within it); choose a role that is advantageous or appealing; play that role; and persuade others to support the role.
Social norms theory[edit]
Social norms theory states that much of people's behaviour is influenced by their perception of how other members of their social group behave. When individuals are in a state of deindividuation, they see themselves only in terms of group identity, and their behaviour is likely to be guided by group norms alone. But while group norms have a powerful effect on behaviour, they can only guide behaviour when they are activated by obvious reminders or by subtle cues. People adhere to social norms through enforcement, internalisation, the sharing of norms by other group members, and frequent activation (Smith 2007). Norms can be enforced through punishment or reward. Individuals are rewarded for living up to their roles (i.e. students getting an "A" on their exam) or punished for not completing the duties of their role (i.e. a salesman is fired for not selling enough product).
Social norm theory has been applied as an environmental approach, with an aim of influencing individuals by manipulating their social and cultural environments. It has been widely applied using social marketing techniques. Normative messages are designed for delivery using various media and promotional strategies in order to effectively reach a target population. Social norms theory has also been successfully applied through strategies such as curriculum infusion, creating press coverage, policy development, and small group inventions.(Main Frame 2002)
The theory of planned behaviour[edit]
People display reactance by fighting against threats to their freedom of action when they find norms inappropriate. Attitudes and norms typically work together to influence behaviour (directly or indirectly). The theory of planned behaviour intentions are a function of three factors: attitudes about the behaviour, social norms relevant to the behaviour, and perceptions of control over the behaviour. When attitudes and norms disagree, their influence on behaviour will depend on their relative accessibility.
Team role theory[edit]
As described in Working in Groups by Engleberg and Wynn, team role theory is when "members assume roles that are compatible with their personal characteristics and skills". Meredith Belbin, a psychologist, first explored the concept of team-role theory in the 1970s when he and his research team went about observing teams and wanted to find out what made teams work and what did not. According to Belbin and his research team "the research revealed that the difference between success and failure for a team was not dependent on factors such as intellect, but more on behavior" (Belbin). They began to identify separate clusters of behaviors and found that behavior was more influential on a team than anything else. These separate clusters of behaviors are known as the "Team Roles". The nine "team roles" are as follows: coordinator/chairperson, shaper, innovator, resource investigator, monitor/evaluator, implementer, teamworker, completer/finisher, and specialist.
Role conflict and role confusion[edit]
See also: Role conflict
There are situations where the prescribed sets of behaviour that characterise roles may lead to cognitive dissonance in individuals. Role conflict is a special form of social conflict that takes place when one is forced to take on two different and incompatible roles at the same time. For example, a person may find conflict between her role as a mother and her role as an employee of a company when her child's demands for time and attention distract her from the needs of her employer.[4] Similarly, role confusion occurs in a situation where an individual has trouble determining which role he or she should play, but where the roles are not necessarily incompatible. For example, if a college student attending a social function encounters his teacher as a fellow guest, he will have to determine whether to relate to the teacher as a student or a peer.
Role enhancement[edit]
Role enhancement or role enrichment refers to a situation in which roles which are held by a person are compatible and moreover enacting one role has beneficial spillover effects on the enactment of the other role. An example which has been studied in depth is the enhancement among roles of breadwinner and caretaker (work–family enrichment).[5] Some evidence indicates that role conflict and role enhancement can occur simultaneously,[6] and further evidence suggests that mental health correlates with low role conflict and high role enhancement.[7][8] Also certain personality traits, in particular traits linked to perceiving and seeking greater levels of support, are associated with lower inter-role conflict and increase inter-role enrichment.[9]
Documenting roles[edit]
In business, documenting roles on process models, such as BPMN diagrams as swim lanes, is becoming common practice in large companies (50% of European and North American companies reported a "significant" or "strategic" commitment[10]). This documentation helps organisations undertaking change projects to formally define the current or envisioned (future) roles expected to be responsible for a business process.
See also[edit]
Look up role in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Wikiquote has quotations related to: Role
Character mask
Conflict theory
Gender role
Purpose in life
Role-playing
Role engulfment
Role model
Role suction
Social position
Social status
Stereotypes
Transactional analysis
The Fundamentals of Social Roles
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b Biddle, B.J. (1986). "Recent Developments in Role Theory". Annual Review of Sociology. 12: 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435.
Jump up ^ Flynn, Robert John; Raymond A. Lemay (1999). A Quarter-Century of Normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and Impact. University of Ottawa Press. p. 224. ISBN 0-7766-0485-6.
Jump up ^ Mead, George H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jump up ^ Hammer, Leslie and Cynthia Thompson. (2003-05-12) Work-Family role conflict Encyclopedia. Sloan Family Work and Research Network, Boston College. Retrieved 2008-09-08.
Jump up ^ Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Gary N. Powell, When Work and Family are Allies: A Theory of Work-Family Enrichment Archived 2012-07-26 at Archive.is, The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, January 2006
Jump up ^ Beth Tiedje, Linda; Wortman, Camille B.; Downey, Geraldine; Emmons, Carol; Biernat, Monica; Lang, Eric (1990). "Women with Multiple Roles: Role-Compatibility Perceptions, Satisfaction, and Mental Health". Journal of Marriage and Family. 52 (1): 63. doi:10.2307/352838. JSTOR 352838.
Jump up ^ Grzywacz, Joseph G.; Bass, Brenda L. (2003). "Work, Family, and Mental Health: Testing Different Models of Work–Family Fit" (PDF). Journal of Marriage and Family. 65 (1): 248–261. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00248.x.
Jump up ^ Work-Family Role Conflict, 2003, Sloan Work and Family Research Network Encyclopedia
Jump up ^ Friede Westring, Alyssa; Marie Ryan, Ann (2010). "Personality and inter-role conflict and enrichment: Investigating the mediating role of support". Human Relations. 63 (12): 1815–1834. doi:10.1177/0018726710371236.
Jump up ^ Harmon, Paul and Wolf, Celia The State of Business Process Management: 2008, Business Process Trends, February 2008
Bibliography[edit]
Biddle, BJ. (1986). "Recent Developments in Role Theory". Annual Review of Sociology. 12: 67–92. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435.
Chandler, Daniel. "Television and Gender Roles". [1]
Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust. Vintage Books, New York. 1996.
Macionis, John J. (2006). Society - The Basics (Eighth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Main Frame: Strategies for Generating Social Norms News. 2002. [2]
Merton, Robert K. (1957). "The Role Set Problems In Sociological Theory". British Journal of Sociology. 8 (2): 106–20. doi:10.2307/587363. JSTOR 587363.
Nagle, Brendan D. (2006). The Ancient World: A Social and Cultural History (Sixth ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Smith, Eliot (2007). Social Psychology, Third Edition. New York: Psychology Press.
Stark, Rodney (2007). Sociology, Tenth Edition. Baylor University. Thomson Wadsworth, California.
Time Life. The Twisted Dream. Time Life, Alexandria, Virginia. 1990.
Authority control
GND: 4178413-3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Role&oldid=816943642"
Categories:
Sociological terminology
Role theory
Identity
Role status
Hidden categories:
Webarchive template archiveis links
Use British English from September 2011
Articles lacking in-text citations from April 2014
All articles lacking in-text citations
Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikiquote
Languages
Български
Català
Čeština
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Español
Euskara
فارسی
Français
한국어
Հայերեն
Ido
Italiano
Қазақша
Lietuvių
Nederlands
日本語
Norsk
Norsk nynorsk
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Simple English
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Suomi
Svenska
Татарча/tatarça
Українська
Tiếng Việt
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 24 December 2017, at 21:47.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

tag: div

attr: id class

value: mw-page-base noprint

key: html

type: local

value: mw-head-base noprint

tag: a

attr: id class lang

value: firstHeading firstHeading en

value: siteSub noprint

value: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attr: href title

attr: role class

value:
note
hatnote navigation-not-searchable

attr: href class title

value:
/wiki/Role_(disambiguation)
mw-disambig
Role (disambiguation)

tag: img

attr: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

tag: td

tag: b

value: Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check

tag: span

value: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-style ambox-More_footnotes

value:
/wiki/Moral_obligation
mw-redirect
Moral obligation

value:
/wiki/Functionalism_(sociology)
mw-redirect
Functionalism (sociology)

value:
/wiki/Norm_(sociology)
mw-redirect
Norm (sociology)

value:
/wiki/Social_sciences
mw-redirect
Social sciences

value:
/wiki/Organisation_theory
mw-redirect
Organisation theory

value: Edit section: Determinants and characteristics

value: Edit section: Role in functionalist and consensus theory

value: Edit section: Role in interactionist or social action theory

value: Edit section: The theory of planned behaviour

value:
/wiki/Theory_of_planned_behaviour
mw-redirect
Theory of planned behaviour

value: Edit section: Role conflict and role confusion

value:
/wiki/Personality_trait
mw-redirect
Personality trait

value:
/wiki/Process_model
mw-redirect
Process model

attr: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

value:
/wiki/Conflict_theory
mw-redirect
Conflict theory

value:
/wiki/Purpose_in_life
mw-redirect
Purpose in life

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F352838

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/352838

value:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

value:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F587363

value:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/587363

value:
nofollow
http://www.psypress.com/smithandmackie/
external text

value:
nofollow
external text
https://d-nb.info/gnd/4178413-3

value: Category:Webarchive template archiveis links

value: Category:Use British English from September 2011

value: Category:Articles lacking in-text citations from April 2014

value: Category:All articles lacking in-text citations

value: Category:Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers

value: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

value: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

value: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

value: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

value:
/wiki/Role
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

value:
/w/index.php?title=Role&action=edit
Edit this page [ctrl-alt-e]
e

value: Find background information on current events

value:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

value: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

value: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

value: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

value: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

value: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

value: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

value: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

value:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

value: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

value: Permanent link to this revision of the page

value: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

value: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

value:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

value: Социална роля – Bulgarian

value:
https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rol
Rol – Catalan
ca
ca
interlanguage-link-target

value:
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolle
Rolle – Danish
da
da
interlanguage-link-target

value: Սոցիալական դեր – Armenian

value:
https://io.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolo
Rolo – Ido
io
io
interlanguage-link-target

value: Әлеуметтік рөл – Kazakh

value: Социальная роль – Russian

value:
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Role
Role – Simple English
simple
simple
interlanguage-link-target

value: Друштвена улога – Serbian

value:
https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rooli
Rooli – Finnish
fi
fi
interlanguage-link-target

value: Социаль роль – Tatar

value: Соціальна роль – Ukrainian

value: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Role rootpage-Role skin-vector action-view