Hitler's Atlantic Wall: Should France preserve it?

[Gerald]

Sections of Hitler's Atlantic Wall are being restored by French enthusiasts. But should the Nazi fortification be fully embraced as part of the country's heritage?

Along 800 miles (1,287km) of French coast lie some of the most substantial and evocative vestiges of war-time Europe.

The so-called Atlantic Wall - Hitler's defensive system against an expected Allied attack - stretched all the way from the Spanish border to Scandinavia.

Inevitably, it was in France that the most extensive building took place. Today there are still thousands of blockhouses, barracks and gun emplacements visible along the French shore.

But in France there has been no effort up until now to preserve this extraordinary historical landmark.

Elsewhere, World War II bunkers have been renovated as tourist attractions or for educational visits. The internet boasts Atlantic Wall fan sites in Germany and the Netherlands - and strong interest in the UK - but nothing in France.

It is as though the nation was relieved to see the German defences slide inexorably into the sands - and oblivion.

But now - quite suddenly - a new mood has emerged. Recently, several local associations dedicated to safeguarding portions of the Wall have been set up in France.

Times have moved on, memories of the war have lapsed, and a new generation no longer feels pain or guilt, but curiosity.

"It really has been very rapid. In just the last three or four years, there has been a radical change," says Marc Mentel, founder of Gramasa (Archaeological Research Group for the Atlantic Wall: Arcachon Sector).

"Today people are constantly coming up to us at our sites and wanting to know more about the Wall. In the past, the whole issue was too painful, it brought back too many bad memories.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-10632543


Note: 13 September 2011 Last updated at 02:06 GMT

[Hottentot]

An interesting question. The first and obvious answer that springs to my mind is: "of course history should be preserved! what kind of question is that?"

Then again, we are not talking just about history, we are talking about an investment. Investments cost time and money, which are both finite. If it is preserved, someone has to preserve it. Someone has to pay for its upkeep, someone has to invest time in taking care of it.

And while it's nice for us foreign tourists to come there, take photos with our fancy cameras and be all "Ooo, aaa" while staring it, we are still talking about the French heritage and French investment here. I can understand why some would rather use the time and money to preserve the French heritage instead of what an occupying country once build there.

Then again, preservering heritage is history, and history should not be just happy things. We can't just "erase" the part that the Atlantic wall represents, it just doesn't work that way in history. Personally I'd say, that a compromise would be ethically the best choice here. Preserve part of the wall in some vital place, but don't overdo it. Instead document the rest of it otherwise, with photos and with research for example.

Two cents from a heritage student.

[Gerald]

Your conclusion has relevance, the French can of course keep what is left for the generations to understand what history means.

[Jimbuna]

Yes

[TarJak]

Oui!

[Anthony W.]

This shouldn't even be a question. To save the future we must preserve our past - no matter how bad it may have been.

[Hottentot]

This shouldn't even be a question.

On the contrary it should be and is a question that any museum or other heritage preserving organization faces as soon as its existence begins. We can't save everything. And I'm not even talking about huge monuments such as these, but small, ordinary things from the past. Things that don't require much space and maintanance, whereas heritage such as this takes incredible investment to be preserved even partially.

Also, not preserving something does not mean forgetting it. There are other means to document something's existence than maintaining the thing itself. It's easy for us foreigners to say "preserve it" when we know that not a single Euro is being taken from us: they are taken from the French taxpayers and it's up to them to decide what part of their heritage they want to preserve. I'm sure a country with such a long history as France can think of many other things as well.

I repeat: in this field of work we must decide what we take and what we leave behind. That's a sad fact of life that is not answered by one liners.

[JU_88]

Yeah they should keep it.
Alot of history is dark and negative but its all still history, you cannot deny it happened. The wall represents so much more than just the Nazis resposible for its construction.

[Hottentot]

Yeah they should keep it.
Alot of history is dark and negative but its all still history, you cannot deny it happened. The wall represents so much more than just the Nazis resposible for its construction.

While I agree that some things from the occupation period should be preserved as history, another question is why the Atlantic Wall? They already certainly have preserved artefacts and monuments of the period, it is not forgotten. What makes the Atlantic Wall so important that it should be included in the list? Especially seeing that other countries (as far as I understood) have already preserved parts of it: do we need one in every country?

[Osmium Steele]

I see no reason to preserve large portions of the wall, but a portion of each landing beach defense and any cemetaries wouldn't be out of the question.

[Herr-Berbunch]

We don't need one in every country, although that would be nice, but France had the largest share of it, and it's nice for them to finally show they have humility.

I'm sure that some euro-funding would find it's way to a large heritage project like this.



Reading that back it doesn't sound like I'm comlimenting the French, but I am. :yep:

[danasan]

If you type "normandie atlanticwall today" in in google maps, you'll find some well preserved items, like the grand bunker, there is even a V1 still there.

I think it is good enough and necessary to keep these places in good condition. Why keep all the stuff? If not the tax payer is going to pay for that, it could only been paid by donations.


http://maps.google.de/maps?hl=de&q=atlantikwall+normandie+heute&gs_upl=35987l37270l0l37684l6l6l0l3l0l2l1005l2568l6-2.1l3l0&biw=1440&bih=729&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=81tvTpTSIYTMsgbUi5mnBw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=3&ved=0CDAQ_AUoAg

[nikimcbee]

Yes, you never know when Britian might invade.:hmmm:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Yes, you never know when Britian might invade.:hmmm:I thought you need a navy if you want to invade from sea... :hmmm:

[momo55]

A stone's throw from where I live, you'll find this lovely open-air museum......

http://www.euro-t-guide.com/See_Coun/Belgium/NW/B_See_Raversijde_Domain_1-1.htm

France must surely be able to offer similar projects to future generations.

;)

[BossMark]

I thought you need a navy if you want to invade from sea... :hmmm:
Yes you do, but we have not got one any more thanks to Cameron and his goons.

Back on topic
Yes they should preserve it

[HunterICX]

Been to various places of the Atlantic wall in my Holidays to Normandy and I really hope when I'm able to visit it again that most of the wall is left preserved.

HunterICX

[MH]

If you don't preserve the wall you will have idiots arguing in 50 years if it really existed...

[Schroeder]

If you don't preserve the wall you will have idiots arguing in 50 years if it really existed...
...and if you preserve it they will argue whether it was really build by the Nazis and whether it wasn't just to protect the French against a possible oppression by invading Brits, Americans and other Allied hostiles...:damn:

[MH]

...and if you preserve it they will argue whether it was really build by the Nazis and whether it wasn't just to protect the French against a possible oppression by invading Brits, Americans and other Allied hostiles...:damn:

You have a point:D

[JU_88]

Yes, you never know when Britian might invade.:hmmm:

At the rate we are selling parts off our country and infastructure off to europe, I doubt that will be any time soon :DL
Even if we did invade France, The French wouldnt need a wall, they could just persuade us to leave for about 20 Euros and a pint of Kronenberg. ;)

[August]

Britain gave up it's historical advantage when they built the Chunnel.

[JU_88]

Britain gave up it's historical advantage when they built the Chunnel.

nah, it would be easy enough to demolish/flood it with a bit of C4. No one would seriously risk an invasion force down that rat hole :),
cheaper to buy us out anyway lol.

[Jimbuna]

£50 and a few curries and that would be it :O:

[Anthony W.]

At the rate we are selling parts off our country and infastructure off to europe, I doubt that will be any time soon :DL
Even if we did invade France, The French wouldnt need a wall, they could just persuade us to leave for about 20 Euros and a pint of Kronenberg. ;)

I bid a dollar for a Harrier.

[TLAM Strike]

Britain gave up it's historical advantage when they built the Chunnel.
I figured you of all around here could appreciate giving the enemy a single corridor of advance. :03:

[August]

I figured you of all around here could appreciate giving the enemy a single corridor of advance. :03:

One? I count three::DL

1. Sea
2. Air
3. Chunnel

[TLAM Strike]

One? I count three::DL

1. Sea
2. Air
3. Chunnel

:hmmm:
In fairness it always was an option...
http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/5237/240402.jpg

[Gerald]

Just as you can read this, the EU pumps more money to save the embankment...

[Oberon]

Good, it needs to be preserved as well as possible. Too many important artifacts from the war have already been allowed to slip away.

There was a model of the Atlantic wall built just down the coast from me so that they could practice finding ways to demolish it, and where Hobarts Funnies were developed. Alas that too as long since gone.

[JU_88]

3. Chunnel

Yeah because we would never expect that!
we surley wouldn't rig our half of it with demolishion charges and we definatley wouldn't monitor it for activity, let alone guard it with every resource avalaible.

....Actually we probabaly couldnt afford to do any of that anyway :woot:

[antikristuseke]

explosives are cheap.

[Herr-Berbunch]

We don't seem to monitor what (who) comes into this country anymore (unless it is officially declared!).

"Need a visa, certainly sir, we'll get you a taxi to Croyden, just join the queue!" :nope:

[August]

Yeah because we would never expect that!
we surley wouldn't rig our half of it with demolishion charges and we definatley wouldn't monitor it for activity, let alone guard it with every resource avalaible.

....Actually we probabaly couldnt afford to do any of that anyway :woot:

All it would take is a small team of highly trained commandos to parachute in, wipe out the security detail, secure the tunnel entrance and dismantle the demolition charges. Personally i'd have the chunnel already wired up. You can't trust those French. Napoleon may return and it'll be 1799 all over again! :|\\

[JU_88]

All it would take is a small team of highly trained commandos to parachute in, wipe out the security detail, secure the tunnel entrance and dismantle the demolition charges. Personally i'd have the chunnel already wired up. You can't trust those French. Napoleon may return and it'll be 1799 all over again! :|\\

I'll forward this on to ministry of defence :)
Edit: you still got to get the commandos Plane past our air defence :)

[STEED]

Its part of the there dark history and its also part of there history which was the first place to be liberated and from there the whole country was. They should keep all of it for history buffs and history lessons.

[Bilge_Rat]

I have a different view. The Germans invaded, conquered France and built the Atlantic Wall.

I don't see an obligation for France, moral or otherwise to spend public funds for their upkeep.

[Hottentot]

Good, it needs to be preserved as well as possible. Too many important artifacts from the war have already been allowed to slip away.

Artifacts slip away all the time, usually because they are intentionally let slip away. We could say the same about the Roman era, medieval era, renaissance era...France has a long history and plenty of cultural heritage to preserve. Therefore I'm curious (for all who support preserving it, not just you Oberon), what makes a wartime fortification special? Of course "special" is a word you could use about any historical artifact, but I mean "special" among special, so special that preserving it gets almost unanimous support here.

Also another question I'd consider is how long do you propose we preserve it? Preserving something makes it a time and money sink, so how long should this investment continue? For 50 years? 100? 1,000? If after 1,000 years we have to have something to tell people about life in France during World War 2, why would we choose the Atlantic Wall?

Not to play devil's advocate. This question just concerns very closely my future profession and the field I'm studying, so I'm genuinely curious.

[Oberon]

Perfectly understandable and it is a very good question.
Personally because I am a history buff I would like to see as much history preserved as possible, I once had the fortune to walk through a Roman villa in Kent, I've been in about three or four castles, and a number of churches which are all historical artifacts. However, you are correct that many have been lost, and indeed it would be impractical to keep them all as much as I wish that it could be.
Certainly sections of the Atlantic wall should be kept to illustrate to future generations what the men assaulting the beaches on D-Day were up against, and indeed of the sacrifice of those who were tasked in building that wall, and the commando raids which prompted the construction of it.
It's not so much about life in France as it is about a momentous event which took place and certainly changed the history of France and the nations around it. There are certain times in history which are so momentous that they deserve commemoration in not just film but also in a solid object which people can see and touch and walk through. It makes it much more...real...to people to be able to feel something rather than just look at pictures and watch film of it. In terms of how long to preserve it? Well...ideally for as long as possible, however in this era of cash strapped nations and government cutbacks many historical and cultural artifacts are losing their funding and/or losing custom because people aren't visiting because they aren't going out so often. Hopefully this is a situation which will change within the next thirty years but one can never be sure and certainly there will be more recessions in the future and alas, most likely, more wars. One only has to look at the artifacts that have been destroyed in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent wars, and those that were damaged in France and Germany during the First and Second World Wars. So the preservation of the Atlantic wall is not necessarily guaranteed even if the money is spared for it. There is a saying that 'If one does not learn from the past, one is doomed to repeat it', and alas there is a lot of people in this day and age who are not learning from the past, and I think that everything we can do to teach people of a) the sacrifices of the past and b) the pitfalls of the past to try to help them to make sure those sacrifices were not in vain and to avoid those pitfalls...well...I think that no amount of money can be enough for such a task.

Plus, on a slightly more selfish note, I'd like the chance to visit the site myself one day. :03:

[TLAM Strike]

If after 1,000 years we have to have something to tell people about life in France during World War 2, why would we choose the Atlantic Wall?

Not to play devil's advocate. This question just concerns very closely my future profession and the field I'm studying, so I'm genuinely curious.
I would say something like: "This is the fortress the good guys threw them self's against first when they came to save Europe from the forces of evil."

[Hottentot]

Certainly sections of the Atlantic wall should be kept to illustrate to future generations what the men assaulting the beaches on D-Day were up against, and indeed of the sacrifice of those who were tasked in building that wall, and the commando raids which prompted the construction of it.

As I said in my first post in this thread, I agree with this and these are all good reasons. If the Atlantic Wall is to be preserved, I too would go for the famous beaches. However, I wouldn't either shed tears if nothing was physically preserved, since the period is already well covered, some might even say overpresented in history. That's the main problem I see here: do we need more WW2 stuff, if it potentially takes funds away from something not so well known, yet just as important.

And if we do need more WW2 stuff, does it have to be specifically more military stuff? I'll adress this further below.

It's not so much about life in France as it is about a momentous event which took place and certainly changed the history of France and the nations around it.The World War certainly was a major event in history, however I'd imagine that audiences would usually be interested in hearing about their own history. One can study history of the whole world from books etc., but physical heritage I think it's a little different. It's heritage: it's something that belongs to the people of the nation, and they want it because they want to see how their ancestors lived.

Case in point: how many Americans, British and Canadians are interested in seeing the Atlantic Wall, because it was the British, Americans and Canadians that stormed the beaches? How many go there to remember the French that were also involved? If I was a French, I would maybe also like to see it, but I'd be far more interested in knowing first of all the other things that happened. Massive operation or not, the D-Day too was just one relatively short event in the war.

Plus, on a slightly more selfish note, I'd like the chance to visit the site myself one daySo would I. Nothing selfish in it, I think. We all think from our own perspectives.

I would say something like: "This is the fortress the good guys threw them self's against first when they came to save Europe from the forces of evil."

A fair point, but who were the good guys? Sure, there were French in there as well, but is France obliged to preserve a monument of some other countries' effort? What happened before the good guys came? What did the French do meanwhile, all those years before it, in occupied France? Played Pokémon?

Personally I'd rather preserve something from the French resistance for example, as far as soldiers go. And definitely something more from the civilians, because they still were the majority of the people back then. Something representing the efforts and troubles of the civilians might not be as "cool" as a bunker, but as far as preserving heritage goes, I'd go for something that represents more people.

Also, what you do guys think of the Maginot line? It has been preserved, even though it could be seen as a symbol of a French failure. Certainly still far more French than the Atlantic Wall, build by foreigners and stormed by (mostly) foreigners.

[Herr-Berbunch]

I think (just guessing here) but your example of preserving some Resistance equipment would be a little late, I'm sure that once de Gaulle placed his feet on home soil most of it would be discarded/destroyed with relatively few being kept as keepsakes and none officially. Items may have now trickled from families to local musea.

The French are not alone, just about all the British code-breaking efforts at Bletchley Park disappeared on bonfires and in scrapyards, only recently was Colossus rebuilt (using only photographs to see what went where!) - and that effort took 14 years! The same with SOE equipment, very little remains. All very important to the war effort, all destroyed afterwards for 'security', which they couldn't say about the Atlantic Wall. :D

[TLAM Strike]

A fair point, but who were the good guys? Sure, there were French in there as well, but is France obliged to preserve a monument of some other countries' effort?
In the US, naimly along the East Coast you will see a lot of French names for streets. Those perserve the name of those French who came over here to liberate us. I live two miles from Lafayette Ave. :03:

[Armistead]

I'm sure some US politician would love to pass it as a pork project and pay for it with US tax dollars, hell, we nation build all over the world while our infrastructure crumbles, might as well rebuild a wall.

[Hottentot]

In the US, naimly along the East Coast you will see a lot of French names for streets. Those perserve the name of those French who came over here to liberate us. I live two miles from Lafayette Ave. :03:

I fail to see how the two things are comparable. One is naming a street with a street sign; the other is putting lots of time and money into preserving a fortification.

[sharkbit]

Look at Betio(Tarawa) on Google Maps-the island is full of buildings. Very few fortifications exist as a rememberance to what happened there in November, 1943.

Sugar Loaf Hill in Okinawa-I heard the top of it was bulldozed due to interference with flight paths to a nearby military base.

I'm sure there are countless reminders of the World War 2 falling apart, being bulldozed, or being reclaimed by the jungle/landscape.

I guess time just marches on.

:)

[Torplexed]

Here on the US West Coast most of the old coastal fortifications are still in place. These pictures were taken at Fort Stevens, Oregon at the mouth of the Columbia River in 2007. They don't have much of an action-packed history behind them though. Fort Stevens only moment of drama was being shelled briefly by a Japanese submarine, which submerged before the fort woke up enough to shoot back. Roosevelt's Pacific Wall....yawn.

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens.jpg

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens02.jpghttp://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens-02.jpg

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens-03.jpg

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens-04.jpg

http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens-05.jpg
http://pyxis.homestead.com/Fort-Stevens03.jpg

[Skybird]

Personally I don't care much. I never have seen it, and I am not interested to ever see it - it means nothing to me, and gives nothing to my life. My historical understanding and conclusions from that do not come from monuments, but films or books of historic documentation, and discussions.

If they want to keep it and maintain it, okay, let them do it - but with private funding exclusively: no state support. The French finances are a cause for major concerns, their budget is anything but solid and like all others in europe they spend more than they can afford, and have high debts. There are much more essential needs than supporting a bunker museum with public tax funding.

You cannot always spend money while having debts and expect to repair your finances that way. You must set priorities. Vital stuff first, important stuff possibly second, everything else: later in better times, or never. Another war museum is luxury.

[TBear]

In Denmark most of the bunkers are getting eaten by the sea. Some of them are maintained and pretty big tourist atractions....

You cant save it all, but make sure to leave a few pieces for the later generations....

Each summer i use the shadows from WWII bunkers to keep cool when at the west coast, tell my kids why they are there and eacj year im stunned about the massive project at have had to be to create the atlantic wall....

LTbear

[Gerald]

http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/7184/1270h.jpg (http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/710/1270h.jpg/)

[Jimbuna]

A British example

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~rwbarnes/defence/hg_/battery_/coast1.jpg