From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Blitzkrieg is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 29, 2005.

English translation of "Blitzkrieg"[edit]

I think the translation of "Blitzkrieg" as "lightning war" is misleading/inferior. The term "Blitzkrieg" refers to a surprisingly fast attack compared to a long-lasting conflict with high material attrition. Hence, "flash war" might be a better translation (In German, both flash and lightning are translated to "Blitz").

Cognitive Dissonance[edit]

Reading this article, it seems that a great deal of effort has been expended to "prove" that blitzkrieg was nothing special, that every element involved was actually old-school tactics merely updated by modern equipment, that Hitler was in fact a dunce, nothing here to see, move along, etc etc.


shows quite a different view. Now, the following is not allowed on wikipedia - WP:Independent Thinking, WP:Application of Logic, WP:Use of the Brain, but it sure seems to me that the rapid defeats of Poland, France, Russia (Barbarossa), and almost England in the first two years of the war would indicate that in fact, the old-timers who were very well-versed in existing battle tactics were in fact not ready for blitzkrieg. Which, to me and in violation of all the aforementioned Wikipedia policies, would indicate that a lot of this article is flat-out wrong. (talk) 05:37, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

And you assume that the dozens of historians expounding the same information that is in this article, which is also the current accepted narrative, are all wrong, but you're right. Ok, sure! EyeTruth (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The Blitzkrieg theory needs a one-eyed view of the subject - the frailty of the opposition is downplayed. Historically, Germany invading Denmark or Belgium in 1940 is more akin to a war of colonial expansion like the Third Anglo-Ashanti War of 1873-1874 than a war between industrial states. The French collapse was the exception and is explained by local rather than structural factors. No doubt the learning site has some merit but it has to be considered in the context of the last thirty years of scholarship, from Cooper to Frieser. Keith-264 (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if blitzkrieg was a simple thing; we could shorten this long article down to a half-paragraph. But WP isn't a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia (and an incredibly massive one). Like most important subjects, blitzkrieg is complicated, and doesn't have clear, tidy edges where it begins and ends. WP reflects that. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blitzkrieg. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


"Some senior officers, including Kurt Student, Franz Halder and Johann Adolf von Kielmansegg, even disputed the idea that it was a military concept." Was this after the war? If it was I'd begin the sentence with "After the war, some...."Keith-264 (talk) 10:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


the word Blitzkrieg was rarely used as an official military term by the Wehrmacht during the war

The above statement in the article conveys purely the wrong message. "Rarely used" implied that it was used only very sparingly as an official military term, but that is completely wrong. The cited source makes it explicitly clear that the ONLY KNOWN USAGE were in propagandist settings. Granted, the absence of evidence doesn't equate to evidence of absence. But that's why it's more accurate to cast it as "practically never used" (i.e. the exact wordings of the cited source) or "rarely ever used". If you can't agree with "rarely ever used", then at least explain on what grounds you would reject the exact phrase ("practically never used") used by the cited source. EyeTruth (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

It's a matter of plain English; practically never and rarely ever are fatuous examples of pleonasm. Notice that Frieser was translated into American not English, which means that it is in a dialect which should be treated with caution.

Despite its ubiquity in German and British journalism during World War II, the word Blitzkrieg was only used officially by the Wehrmacht for propaganda.

How about this? Keith-264 (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)