Talk:Blitzkrieg

Template:V0.5

Blitzkrieg in Poland

Input appreciated at Talk:Invasion of Poland (1939)#Blitzkrieg myth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 03:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't happen. Even the myth itself, large concentrations of armour supported by air power did not exist in Case White. The PDs were spread out - not really Blitzkrieg. Infact it was, and rightly so, the infantry that got credit for the victory. Dapi89 (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all - Blitzkrieg itself is not a myth. Russian historians found the best definition of German Blitzkrieg. Blitzkrieg (in its German version - because there was also a Soviet version of Blitzkrieg, the best example of which is the Vistula - Oder operation in September of 1945) is an elitaristic, bourgeois conception which relies on high combat value of well-equipped, elite units which constitute the minority of armed forces, not on massive mechanized armies as in the Soviet version (source: Christopher Duffy, "Red Storm on the Reich", page 64).

Secondly - Blitzkrieg in Poland happened and in some ways in Poland it happened more than anywhere else. The stupid myth that in Poland Panzer divisions operated separately and large concentrations of armour were not present can be found for example in "The Blitzkrieg Legend" written by Frieser, but this myth is completely false. On page 18 of "The Blitzkrieg Legend" we can find:

"[...] during the Polish campaign German armor was not yet employed independently on operational level either at the corps or army echelons. Instead the Panzer formations on the tactical level usually fought in a divisional framework." - both the claim that in Poland Germans didn't have armoured corps and the claim that Panzer division is a formation designed to work on tactical level (even single Panzer division is a formation clearly designed to complete operational tasks) are false. In fact Germans had got plenty of armoured-motorized Corps in Poland in 1939 - XIX., XVI., XV., XIV., XXII., some of them even cooperated with each other, for example XVI., XV. and XIV. or XIX. and XXII.

In Poland one of the biggest concentrations of armour per each kilometre of the frontline in WW2 took place (for example during the battles of Piotrkow Trybunalski - Tomaszow Mazowiecki, during the battle of Radom, during the initial German advance and battles near Czestochowa).

I explained it clearly in my (Domen121 / Domen123) posts on these forums, I also don't agree that infantry got credit for the victory (and I explained it there):

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=137912&p=1384598#p1384598

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=25632&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=105

http://www.feldgrau.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=9183&p=218717&hilit=the+german+campaign+in+poland#p218717

Peter558 (talk) 22:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Peter, the dominant position in academic literature is it didn't exist. Infact the most ardent historians are Germans. To suggest Blitzkrieg existed it to proffer the now discredited theory that the Germans intended to achieve their total aims by a series of short campaigns. This was not the case. The websites you offer don't come close to being first class academic sources, and they are typical of the rubbish that exist on the internet.

And I have the book by Frieser - he does not argue that Blitzkrieg was actioned in Poland - infact his whole thesis is that Blitzkrieg was a myth! He calls it a world-wide delusion. Dapi89 (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

North Africa

The section is uncited and doesn't make it all clear whether it is arguing the so called Blitzkrieg did take place there. If cites are not found, it should be removed. There is absolutely no connection (in my mind alone) in the article to North Africa and the Blitzkrieg methodology. Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Myths & Realities

Added section. Given the amount of crap on the internet an in books, not to mention the "myth buying" of people on the concept of the Blitzkrieg doctrine, the above needs to be addressed:

• It ain't new
• The Third Reich did not have a Blitzkrieg economy - It did not prepare its economy for a "Bltizkrieg" war, but an all out conflict much later than 1939
• The make up of the German army forces as fully mechanized and highly trained - largely nonsense

All trashed by Friesers "Blitzkrieg Legend", Overy's work, and Harris, Naveh and most of the other heavy weights . Dapi89 (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Earlier use of the term "lightning war"

I read an article from August 1939 which mentions a Hungarian author discussing the idea of Germany undertaking "a lightning war". The context of the newspaper article suggests that this term was already being used well before the article was written, which differs from this wikipedia article's claim that the term was later applied by western journalists.

http://orwelldiaries.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/daily-telegraph-8-8-39-page-10-2.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonovision (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read this article carefully. It says no such thing. German uses of the word can be found earlier than 1939. But offering a word without attaching any kind of meaningful theory is useless. Neither the authors that used this word mention any detail about how a Blitzkrieg victory is supposed to be won. Dapi89 (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I've edited the second paragraph to make it more clear. I've split the run-on sentence into two parts, and removed the reference to "eingreif", because it is not explained in the rest of the article. --Jonovision (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

A year ago, this was an encyclopedia article discussing the history of the term "Blitzkrieg" and the development of maneuver warfare in the 20th century. At the moment, it appears primarily to be a sloppily-written polemic denouncing the term and its users and attempting to argue that either no such development occurred or that, if it did, Germans should get no credit for it.

I see sufficient references to support the idea that there is controversy over both the term and the historical development, and would be appropriate for the article to discuss this controversy. What is not appropriate for the article to be scattered with weasel words ("alleged"), accusations of bad faith ("by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted..."), and conclusions such as "Another misconception... is also misleading."

Furthermore, even if it were to become widely agreed that the "classical" interpretation of "Blitzkrieg" in relation to WW2 was a historical fallacy -- something far from the case; the best Wikipedia can do is present the arguments -- that interpretation would itself still be a historical fact and the term would still have a meaning in common usage.

Please let me be clear: I have no stake in the reputations of Guderian, Liddell-Hart or the German general staff. But this article as it stands has become unencyclopedic.

--Chronodm (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Rubbish. You obviously have no idea about the subject. I study military history, and it is well known and covered by some of the most prominent historians. Every single line in relation to this "controversy" is sourced - and is worded in the way of the said author. Stop trying to casue trouble where there isn't any. Dapi89 (talk) 09:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Quotation marks have been added to the section relating to Hart to avoid erroneous accusations of 'POV' in future. This article represents the dominant academic view of Blitzkrieg, not some fanboy bullshit that is found in third rate books that only touch on the subject. The modern works have examined the German archives far more thoroughly than old authors, who simply did not have access to them. Dapi89 (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The new phrasing is improved. However, headings such as "Alleged foreign influence" still make no sense to the lay reader. I don't doubt that they make sense to an expert on the subject such as yourself, but it doesn't say anything about who alleges this or why -- it's written under the assumption that the reader is already familiar with the former conventional wisdom on the subject, and argues with that conventional wisdom. Again, I am not disputing the correctness of your argument but I am disputing the style in which it is made. --Chronodm (talk) 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have dumped the problematic words. I still think they are npov, but I'm not unreasonable. I'm not an expert yet. Dapi89 (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, it a good article, but needs clean up and more at the top for modern and common uses of the term. One recommendation. The only controversy seems to be when the term "Blitzkrieg" is used to describe Wehrmacht doctrine. In the NFL a shotgun formation passing heavy offense became know as a "west coast offense" yet none of the playbooks or documentation of that era ever used the term "west coast offense"

If I understand correctly - Historically - "Blitzkrieg" is a retroactive term to describe the Wehrmacht use of mechanized warfare with the doctrine of establishing a schwertpunkt to provide direction after initial break through was made, and how to use concepts like rattzenkrieg and cauldron battle to exploit maneuver advantage on the enemy. Does it really matter that Wermacht Doctrine combined with mechanized weapons of the day was so unprecedented and revolutionary in effectiveness that it inspired a new word and theoretical concept of battle for generations to come? At Cannae Hannibal didn't call it "double envelopment". Historians named it that well after the battle had ended.

But the only historical controversy appears to be the origin of the term. The modern popular usage and the fact that popular culture uses a watered down version of the concept is worth a sentence or two - the same can be said of almost any sophisticated concept named by a single term.

The point is Historians make a living arguing semantics. Great. This is an encyclopedia to summarize all uses and origins of the term, including but not exclusively historical and theoretical contexts.'Bold text' Historians will always argue semantics of historical relevance. Strategists like Liddel-Hart or Boyd use "Blitzkrieg" as a retroactive term that in general describes the sorts of maneuver driven successes that effectively conquered France in WWII; as an homage to Rommel & Guderian. They use Blitzkrieg to describe that style of warfare; they never made any historical claim to what the Wermacht formal terminology for their doctrine at the time. And I'd bet they would freely agree that the Wehrmacht didn't expect it to work so well, or inspire a new style of mechanized warfare for generations to come in multiple languages and militarizes far exceeding the humble roots of the phenomena. "Blitz Krieg" is a modern term used to describe mechanized fast maneuver warfare that ignores lines of supply or control. The Wehrmacht is attributed to apparently accidentally inventing it and it got named by the media retroactively. The strategists are arguing strategic theory, not history. And even then we have to admit that JFC Fuller and the Tank are what made blitzkrieg possible - and they made the blue print for it.

You got to admit - the whole article still reads mostly like a complaint that people use Blitzkrieg in a semantically retroactive sense that despite common usage is not historically accurate. I still say, the same argument cam be made with terms like "West Cost Offense," "OODA Loop," mathematics vs arithmetic, or E=mc^2. That doesn't mean that a well written and pedantic article on the current state of debate in academic journals is strictly appropriate to dominate an encyclopedic entry on the term. The history is fascinating; but is much more than necessary and does take away from the common, popular, and modern uses of the term outside of the historical community that are not well represented in the article.

Also - Read Clausewitz again. Schwerpunkt is a much broader and more useful concept than the current entry describes it; even when you limit it to the historical application of the formal written Wermacht doctrine of WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.82.126.100 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)