What does the Maginot Line represent? There is no simple, universal answer to that question. For many, it’s an example that the best-intended plans may go awry. For others, it’s a warning against preparing to fight the last war instead of anticipating the next one. Many see it as a symbol of a weak resistance that collapses under the slightest pressure. Depending on your perspective, historical knowledge, and emphasis, the Maginot Line can refer to being outsmarted, lacking foresight, or lacking courage and determination. Above all, however it refers to France’s quick defeat in World War Two.
For some, however, it’s not so much that France was beaten as that this had highly catastrophic results. Without the failure of the Maginot Line and the quick surrender of the French, the Germans would not have been able to swiftly conquer Europe, invade Russia, and implement the Final Solution. For these folks, the Maginot Line represents the triumph of evil and the destruction of the Nazi’s long list of undesirable peoples, including millions of Jews.
This last interpretation is perhaps not the most obvious, since if you wanted to talk about the Holocaust or genocide there’s no need to make reference to the French at all. But the fall of France means different things to different people, and there is no right or wrong answer. I mentioned that Maginot Line because it’s common to use it as shorthand for something else, but this subject is in the news for something Chris Matthews of MSNBC said on Saturday after watching Sanders’ landslide victory in Nevada. He didn’t explicitly mention the Maginot Line, but people have picked up the term to characterize his comments.
The Hardball host told viewers that if Sanders became the Democratic nominee, Republicans would release opposition research about “what [Sanders] said in the past about world affairs, how far left he is” that would “kill him” in the general election in November.
“But I think it’s a little late to stop him,” Matthews told viewers.
Then the MSNBC star turned to the history books for an analogy to describe his feelings at watching a series of top Democrats be outpaced by Sanders.
“I was reading last night about the fall of France in the summer of 1940,” said Matthews, “And the general, Reynaud, calls up Churchill and says, ‘It’s over.’ And Churchill says, ‘How can that be? You’ve got the greatest army in Europe. How can it be over?’ He said, ‘It’s over.'”
“So I had that suppressed feeling,” said Matthews.
It’s hard to know what was in Matthews’ mind, but I believe he was delivering a muddled message. In one sense, he was saying that Sanders had struck quickly in the same kind of blitzkrieg that General Guderian used to stun and defeat the French. But the outcome that most clearly concerned him was not Sanders’ victory but Trump’s.
After all, if we’re sticking strictly to the Nazi analogy, France was eventually liberated. Matthews wasn’t suggesting that the Democratic Establishment win be the winners of the 2020 election, but rather that Trump will be the victor. In either scenario, the Democratic Establishment will be the loser.
Matthews has made other comments about Sanders’ socialism that make it clear that he has an independent antipathy for the senator from Vermont, so this wasn’t a mere slip of the tongue.
In a post-debate show earlier in February, Matthews also began discussing Cold War executions when speaking of Sanders’ embrace of democratic socialism.
“I believe if [Fidel] Castro and the Reds had won the Cold War there would have been executions in Central Park and I might have been one of the ones getting executed. And certain other people would be there cheering, okay?” said Matthews.
“So, I have a problem with people who take the other side. I don’t know who Bernie supports over these years,” said Matthews. “I don’t know what he means by socialist.”
Matthews’ distaste for Sanders isn’t in question, but he’s more clearly guilty of comparing him to Stalin than Hitler. It’s unfortunate that he chose an analogy that compared Sanders’ victory in Nevada to the Nazis victory over France, especially because Sanders is Jewish and lost family members in the Holocaust. But that doesn’t seem to be what he was trying to say. He was looking for a way to emphasize that the mainstream Democrats have already been defeated in a quick battle in which they put up only token resistance.
There are some good arguments that Matthews should no longer be a mainstay on MSNBC and supporters of Bernie Sanders have a well-established beef with how Matthews talks about their candidate. I don’t think this event really stands up as a last straw, but his earlier comments about Sanders having people shot in Central Park is a closer call.
Taken in tandem, I think it certainly warrants some executive having a talk with him about how he wants to talk about Sanders and his movement in the future.
This in an absurd knock on Matthews. If MSNBC wants to replace him, OK. He’s past his prime, often confused and his insights are generally off-base. There are better choices for his hour. But these leaps of logic attempting to show that Matthews thinks Bernie supporters are either Nazis or Communists are nonsense. The problem with using historical analogies is that the American people don’t know history beyond the Civil War and WW2. What’s he going to do, start talking Mensheviks and Bolsheviks? The corruption of the Roman senate?
Matthews is past it, sure, but its worse than that. Anybody who thinks that Fidel Castro and the Russians could have won the Cold War — whatever that means — to the point of shooting American partisans in Central Park never had it. The whole notion is misplaced because it never could have happened. Fire him.
Back on the day more than a few of my relatives believed that Russia could win the cold war and people would be shot on Central Park.
that’s probably a fair translation. But as Godwin more-or-less said, once Nazis come into the discussion, sanity leaves.
I agree with you that the “executions in Central Park” shit is worse.
Let’s not call it “fired”, call it “transitioned into well-earned retirement”.
It was ugly — twice. Someone from HR should talk to him that’s for sure. Be nice Chris, if you can’t there’s the door. Too harsh?
The French decision to built the Maginot Line (fortifications along the German border) actually was sensible given the circumstances that France was dealing with after the 1st World War. Not only was the population of Germany substantially more than that of France, but French casualties in WW1 had been staggering: a whole generation of young Frenchmen had been destroyed. Per Wikipedia: “The American historian William Keylor wrote that given the diplomatic conditions of 1929 and likely trends – with the United States isolationist and Britain unwilling to make the ‘continental commitment’ – the decision to build the Maginot Line was not irrational and stupid, as 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. 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. 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. Faced with a manpower shortage, French planners had to rely more on older and less fit reservists, who would take longer to mobilise and would diminish French industry because they would leave their jobs.”
Agree. The mistake was not extending the line along the Belgian border. IIRC the Belgians objected.
that’s what I remember reading. Of course with that border not fortified, the Germans came through Belgium again, which anybody could have predicted. The French could have fairly argued that they were protecting Belgium by building it.
it’s also true that even the inadequate Line that didn’t cover the Belgian border had already cost a fortune.
Would Matthews be any better with Warren, Harris, or any of the other candidates besides Biden or Bloomberg? No. Was he better with Clinton? No.
He’s not there for his interview ‘skills’, his verbal mastery, or his ability to understand arcane legislation. He has none of those abilities. He’s there to cut the legs out of whomever the Democratic nominee is ……… unless it’s Bloomberg.
He’s there because above all else, he will defend his bosses (and his own) right not to pay more in taxes.
Not even a little more.
.