How is it ignored? It's impossible to have a successful 2 month campaign in a country as vast as Russia. What happened historically in 1941 was a series of mini Blitzkrieg operations punctuated with traditional keil und kessel or Kesselschlacht operations that were necessary to close pockets and reduce them. I'm sure you know that Blitzkrieg can be maintained for as long as the momentum and impetus exists. I'm not sure why you are so wrapped up in this 6-8 week length which is fine for countries the size of Poland and France but impossible for the largest country on earth.An exercise in futility, especially since the essence of Blitzkrieg, is once again, ignored.
Well, look at what happened historically Monty. Because they chose to attack south instead of another assault on Moscow, the Wehrmacht caught the Soviets off guard and Case Blau was initially as successful as the opening weeks of Barbarossa had been. In my 'what if' scenario, the Germans would again do something like this but without the losses suffered in the Soviet winter counteroffensive of 1941.I really cannot see how a two campaign strategy would have worked given the comparative strengths and weaknesses of both armies at what would have been the end of the first campaign and the start of the second one.
My impression is that the Germans achieved as much as they did by not allowing the Russians a respite and time to regroup and rearm as soon as they were given that chance the tide of the war in the east changed which had to be expected when fighting a nation with such large quantities of resources.
Well I think the Germans were going on what had worked in France also I think they underestamated the harshness of the Russian Winter.
True but what I meant was I don't think the Germans were prepared fr the Russian policy of burning their own posseions when the Germans were going to capture those positions.
How is it ignored? It's impossible to have a successful 2 month campaign in a country as vast as Russia. What happened historically in 1941 was a series of mini Blitzkrieg operations punctuated with traditional keil und kessel or Kesselschlacht operations that were necessary to close pockets and reduce them. I'm sure you know that Blitzkrieg can be maintained for as long as the momentum and impetus exists. I'm not sure why you are so wrapped up in this 6-8 week length which is fine for countries the size of Poland and France but impossible for the largest country on earth.
I don't ignore what you say, I just disagree with it, just as I completely disagree with this entire post. I'm not sure where you get your definition of Blitzkrieg from, but it doesn't correspond with my understanding of it. Must be my limited knowledge huh?Because you obviously ignore what I say which does not match up with your limited knowledge. Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland or France. Blitzkrieg was only really used against the USSR and the essence of Blitzkrieg is a quick campaign, no total war footing, no mobilization of the entire country for a war, but a planned operation by the General Staff which would only take 8-12 weeks. Planning for only 8-12 weeks and stock piles for that long, supplies, etc. What you're advocating is, once again, NOT Blitzkrieg.
I don't ignore what you say, I just disagree with it, just as I completely disagree with this entire post. I'm not sure where you get your definition of Blitzkrieg from, but it doesn't correspond with my understanding of it. Must be my limited knowledge huh?
I agree they do not last for years. Please point where I am supposed to have said this.It's either your limited knowledge or simply an incorrect understanding of the term. Blitzkrieg is an operational art which has limited goals and a limited time period during which it can be accomplished. Blitzkrieg campaigns do not last for years. Provide an example of one that does, you cannot, they do not exist.
Blitzkrieg was not used in Poland or France. Blitzkrieg was only really used against the USSR and the essence of Blitzkrieg is a quick campaign, no total war footing, no mobilization of the entire country for a war, but a planned operation by the General Staff which would only take 8-12 weeks. Planning for only 8-12 weeks and stock piles for that long, supplies, etc. What you're advocating is, once again, NOT Blitzkrieg.
I agree they do not last for years. Please point where I am supposed to have said this.
IMO Barbarossa would have worked best as a 2 season campaign, with the schwerpunkt though through Army Group South. I don't have enough time to expand on this atm but the idea would be to reach and hold the Dneiper River and hold that general defensive line until spring 1942. What would happen then would depend obviously on the actual results of the first season. The Red Army would have to be caught off guard as they were historically, which is why 'Case Blau', the German codename for the 1942 summer offensive, went initially so well.
In what respect was the invasion of France and the low countries not Blitzkrieg? Surely if one campaign counted as Blitzkrieg this was it. This was completed within around 5-6 weeks, by-passing stronger forces, severing the means of communication and supplies through the rapid movement of armour supported by aerial artillery. There are some who suggest this was the only genuine use of Blitzkrieg ever successfully achieved. The only flaw was allowing the evacuation of the BEF, and this wouldn't have happened if Guderian had had his way.
'Blitzkrieg' is a operational-level system not a strategic plan. Please re-read post 62 of mine. In any case, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. The Germans used the same tactics in Poland, France and initially in Russia so this all basically nit-picking.I quote:
That is not 'Blitzkrieg.'
My reason for a 2 season campaign is that it is a gamble to a) be able to capture Moscow in one season and b) there is no guarantee that taking Moscow would signal the capitulation of the Soviet regime. Remember what happened to Napoleon. German military doctrine since the Scharnhorst reforms in the early 19th century was to destroy the enemy army in the field rather than capture strongholds - a 2 season campaign would mirror this doctrine.
'Blitzkrieg' is a operational-level system not a strategic plan. Please re-read post 62 of mine. In any case, this discussion is becoming increasingly pointless. The Germans used the same tactics in Poland, France and initially in Russia so this all basically nit-picking.
That's right, Blitzkrieg is an operational level concept, but for the invasion of the Soviet Union the German General Staff tried to create a strategic concept from it, hence one of the reasons they lost the war. Once again, read "Blitzkrieg Legend." France and Poland were NOT Blitzkrieg campaigns.
That's right... They also tried to agitate people to flee in western direction where it was possible, most in non-Russian territories. By use of propaganda like `Evil commies will come and will kill/rob/enslave all of you` (in fact, this propaganda was partly true). From Latvia in such way fled about 200 000 people.Ollie.......I thought the Germans did their best to destroy every thing they could in Russia as they retreated. They ploughed up the rial lines so that they could not be used, they burnt and blew up every thing they could including peoples houses leaving the people to freeze to death. the only reason they could not destroy it all was that the Russian advanced to fast and that the Germans did not have enough man power to destroy every thing and maintain enough men in their lines to fight the Russians
That's true. However Latvians just like Lithuanians, Estonians and Ukrainians fought on both sides that war.Well the Latvians had helped Germany in there assault of Russia there fore had some thing to fear when the Russian troops began to advance into their country
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.