Talk:Blitzkrieg/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Jagdpanther or Jagdtiger

I would like to draw attention to the fact that at the end of the article someone has posted a picture of Jagdtiger saying that it was the ultimate german tank destroyer. I do contest this as the Jagdpanther was probably the best german tank destroyer, if not the best in the war(SU-100 was pretty good as well). It had a lower profile better reliability and mobility all three crucial to the hide strike and move tactics used at the end of the war. I would also point out that the Jagdpanther was somewhat impratical to use due to it's weight, size and teething problems due to incomplet mechanical testing. Futhermore, there were only 88 Jagdtigers produced making them but a footnote in the production of german armour. The Jagdpanther on the other hand had sufficient developpement and had a total of 382-392 exemplaries produced. I might also add that it was two Jagdpanthers that totally decimated a complete colum of Churchills. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.118.199 (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the caption to read "a formidable German tank destroyer" (and reduced the size of the image, since it really doesn't need to be 300px). Hohum (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly Opinion

The current text has "However, scholarly opinion states that "Blitzkrieg" holds little in common with Soviet deep battle." On my asking for a citation for "scholarly opinion" Dapi89 provided the reference "Watt, Robert. Feeling the Full Force of a Four Point Offensive: Re-Interpreting The Red Army's 1944 Belorussian...". It is a bit ironic that Dapi89 felt it proper to provide a reference in response to my request for one, while also leaving me a message on my talkpage titled "STOP NOW" asking me not to ask for references. Be that as it may, my question is: Is it proper to use an all encompassing term like "scholarly opinion", to elevate the opinion of one historian to a seemingly overarching "scholarly opinion"? Also the cite provided from its title doesn't seems to be about Blitz vs. Soviet Deep Operations, but rather may have referred to the comparison incidentally. It would be helpful if a quote from this reference was provided justifying "scholarly opinion".

Also related is this post I made to the Soviet deep battle talkpage [[1]]

Steel2009 (talk) 19:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Steel is busy trying to cause controversy were there isn't any. And your post here steel is canvassing. If you bothered to read the deep battle paget properly, you would see Watts opinion clearly laid out in the form of a block quote. But you hav't read it because you are not interested in it. You are though, trying to fish for trouble. And that quote from Watt was amended BEFORE you left any messages whatsover. Dapi89 (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure why a post to a talkpage (not even the actual article) asking for references is "canvassing". I did read the block quote from Watts (quoting Triandafillov), but do not find it discussing any comparisons between the Blitz and SDB. The Watts article from its title (Feeling the Full Force of a Four Point Offensive: Re-Interpreting The Red Army's 1944 Belorussian...) seems to be about a particular offensive rather than a comparison between the Blitz and SDB. Cheers, Steel2009 (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course you do. Discourse is over as far as I am concerned. The sources will do the talking. I think the most obvious point to make here is your motives for reverting. Clearly, you don't seem to have an indepth knowledge of the subject (as is obvious from you even asking the question), yet you continue to revert information despite it being sourced and despite being promised more sources. So I am not going to reply to this thread again. More sources will follow in the article. Dapi89 (talk) 12:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Not engaging is discussion is not quite the path to success in Wiki, but that is just my opinion. Anyway, I find the elevation of Watt to "scholarly opinion" to be POV, and am making it specific that it is Watt's opinion. Steel2009 (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

To answer: "my question is: Is it proper to use an all encompassing term like 'scholarly opinion', to elevate the opinion of one historian to a seemingly overarching 'scholarly opinion'?" - Steel2009.

IMO, no, it isn't proper, whether Dapi deigns to reply here or not. It's also rather ironic that we can have a several week discussion about including a single well sourced sentence which a group of editors wanted to include, but apparently not about misrepresenting a source from a single author. ;) At least there doesn't seem to be an edit war about it this time. Hohum (talk) 00:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, this article appears very biased. If there are a hundred authors on a subject, one can always pick the ten that will support a specific point of view and fill the article with that POV. However, I realize my own shortcoming in this matter. If I had the time and energy, I would have consulted the remaining ninety authors and nudged the article towards NPOV. As I am not doing that, there is only so much I can accomplish. So I am just restricting myself to pointing out what appear to be the most blatant POV. Thanks, Steel2009 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Such twisted logic Hohum. It's also rather ironic that we can have a several week discussion about including a single well sourced sentence which a group of editors wanted to include. This is not true at all. The first "75%" was unsourced and was wrong - Steel just decided to pluck this out of thin air without even bothering to confer with the most basic of sources: GOOGLE. The second was also wrong and unreliable. Moreover, we have more ignorance about Blitzkrieg and Soviet Deep battle. They were not the same. Scholary opinion holdS them as completely different. I am not misrepresenting anything, that is a lie. I have stated that if I am given time I will add more sources - drown you in them if I have to. So I have reverted the steel's reversion. I will be back with more than enough to sink this debate for good. Dapi89 (talk) 12:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

One historian isn't all of "scholarly opinion". Prove it is or make it clear it is his opinion. Also, the argument about the inclusion of the other sentence went on for weeks after I have provided references and corrected the percentage. Hohum (talk) 18:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I indeed gave Dapi two choices when I did the edit: 1) Provide more sources as just one reference does not constitute "scholarly opinion". His response was to leave a message on my talk page titled "STOP NOW". Seems like he is now changed his mind and is ready to provide more sources. 2) If more sources are not provided then the text is to be removed. Got to play by the rules of Wiki. I am removing "scholarly opinion" till more sources are provided. Steel2009 (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes Hohum, which was also wrong. Which was why it was corrected again, for a third time. 75 to 60 to 58. And it really is a big different considering each percentage counts for tens of thousands. Steel, nah. Just nah. And it would be nice if you stopped following me around. If have content to contribute to the SDB page, by all means do so. If not, stop deleting things you have not seen and do not understand. Dapi89 (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

To correct your imaginative recollection, I posted several references on the talk page, giving specific numbers, and since they varied, then said: "So, 60% is closer".

Anyway, enough distraction. It is unacceptable to state one historians view as "scholarly opinion" in general, without additional support. Hohum (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Since no references have been supplied to support a claim of general "scholarly opinion", I have altered the text in line with WP:RELIABLE, which states:

"The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing. Without a reliable source that claims a consensus exists, individual opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Hohum (talk) 16:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

counter-tactics

the here mentioned counter-tactics arent good examples for "counter-tactics" , all examples ( kursk bulge mortain ) are only example for superior reserves... . kursk as example was a failure for germans because the huge red army reserves. from the operation lüttich article :

• "the Luftwaffe reported that its fighters were engaged by Allied aircraft from the moment they took off, and were unable even to reach the battlefield.[19] In the open ground east of Mortain, the German Panzers became exposed targets, especially for rocket-firing Hawker Typhoon fighter bombers of the RAF.[16] German tank forces suffered severe casualties throughout August 7 at the hands of Allied aircraft, significantly blunting the offensive."

having massive air superioty is no special tactic to counter a schwerpunkt penetration... . to the hedhogdefence. this is indeed a stupid tactic when u fight a enemy with even ressources. this concept is based on having such big reserves that u can counter. its the same like hitlers "fester platz" defence, hitler was blamed for his stupidness by german generals... . the Hedhogdefence only works when u have more men than the enemy. if not u will lose important amounts of troops and cant counter.... . bastogne for example , if the wehrmacht had same ressources like the allied the countermoves of the allied werent possible and elite troops like 101st airborne were lost for nothing... . the hedhogdenfence is NO good tactic to counter schwerpunkt penetrations, it only works under special conditions and even when it works there are better tactics.

the best tactic to counter penetrations is good retreat with good counterstrikes. if possible pincer attacks. this tactic was used by germans. indeed german were good in penetrations battles and countering them. the battle of the bulge for example was a good example for the medium skill of allied leadership. look pattons plans... .

examples:

• many little actions during barbarossa
• second battle of kharkov
• operation mars
• third battle of kharkov
• some actions while battle of dniepr
• many little actions...

russian:

• russian retreat when case blue was launched. ( notice: really big retreat special situation...)

the article now is highly doubtable because is see no "proof" that this tactics will work without superioty in numbers.... for me best counter of german attacks was the russian retreat before stalingrad and the later counter... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.144.3 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Counter-tactics refer to mass at a certain point, in essence a reverse of the method. This in itself is a tactic whether it be air or land power. It does not have to be special. In fact many rudimentary methods would have surfaced (strike the spear head at its weakest point). The point being made is that Blitzkrieg is about striking where the enemy is not. It fails, as you say, when a minimal amount of competence and force is employed against it. But ‘Blitzkrieg’ can fail when minimal force is employed against it. In Russia in 1941 and the Bulge in 1944, small pockets of resistance slowed down the spearheads enabling reserves to reposition. The counter attacks, i.e. retreat and strike were effective. Unfortunately the French and Soviets failed to attack the flanks of any advance until the Kursk battle in ’43.

I would also say that one needs to careful about criticizing Hitler. Hitler was dead in 1945 and not around to defend himself. Of course the German Generals would blame him, if only to secure there ‘competence’ or reputation in history. The Kursk battle was ridiculous. Consider there was no strategic objective, one must ask: What on earth are you fighting there for? Particularly when the Soviets saw it coming by way of shear geography. In fact Hitler preferred a defensive stance after Stalingrad, at least initially. This was until Manstein and a few in the General Staff convinced him first strike was still an option. Blaming Hitler for everything plays into the hands of those who think the general Staff was the best in the world and was only undone by a mad figurehead. Dapi89 (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

hi dapi, to some of your points

• "It fails, as you say, when a minimal amount of competence and force is employed against it."

thats not correct in my opinion. whats "minimal" ?

• "In Russia in 1941 and the Bulge in 1944, small pockets of resistance slowed down the spearheads enabling reserves to reposition."

i cant understand the slowingdown arguement esspecialy the 1941russia. the wehrmacht advanced faster than every army before and after. slowing down the enemy for some days with big forces is no achievement... dubno for example. every tank u knock out is slowing u down.... every 100.000 soldiers who got trapped are slowing u down. THATS NOT a achievement its only better than doing nothing , not more...

• "Unfortunately the French and Soviets failed to attack the flanks of any advance until the Kursk battle in ’43."

not true... they often counterattacked in small scale actions but did it not well. i dont see important attacks on german flanks on Kursk... . the kursk counteroffensive were "bad" broadfront attacks with huge casualties, very ineffective.

• "I would also say that one needs to careful about criticizing Hitler. Hitler was dead in 1945 and not around to defend himself."

i didnt meant that in general, i was taking about the festerplatz/hedghogdefence which is indeed a very bad tactic against an equal enemy...

• "Of course the German Generals would blame him, if only to secure there ‘competence’ or reputation in history."

their is consense in history that hitler did enourmus mistakes which were criticied DURING the war. starting in france going on with sending tanks do kiev and not to moscow going on with dividing heeresgruppe süd ending with sending troops to prague... . its well documented that many german generals ciritized hitler during the war. thats why so many had to go... some german generals were outstanding were forced to go . and its also well known that generals like manstein which performed already outstanding would have performed much better without hitlers interference(dniepre , instant attack on kursk).... but this is off topic.

i think it would be good to show the reader the most effectic countermoves like battle charkov 2-3 and operation mars. or explain them the allied failure in the bulge with describing pattons plans for example...

i think i look bias but i try to discuss this neutral and battle of bule and kursk were very "ineffectiv". when u have more troops only destroying the enemy force with low casualties is effectiv... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.176.148.49 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, the pockets of Soviet forces destroyed the German operational and strategic time table. The Battle of Smolensk (1941) and Battle of Kiev (1941) took a month each. Considering the campaign was supposed to be a two to three month exercise, on can see the effects of such resistance. Again, with respect, they did not counter the flanks of German spearheads. Arras, you will notice was a predominantly British action. Perhpas I should have said, for clarity, attacking spearheads, i.e while German forces were on the move. To the General Staff: Hitler made mistakes, but most of the operational plans were drawn up by the General Staff and personalities were still able to influence Hitler's decisions in 1943. Guderian ignored orders in August 1941, operating outside the operational directives and wasting time and energy accomplishing nothing. The German Staff of both world wars were incapable of thinking above the operational level. Hitler made the strategic decisions he did because he did not have strategically-minded advisors. In the years that he had the initiative (41 and 42) the splitting up the Southern Army Group was the only mistake he really made. I persoanlly think the decision to pursue Kiev instead of Moscow in 1941 was the right one. The capture of Moscow in 1941 would not have ended the war. Dapi89 (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of Dapi's points on this one. Though Hitler was a murderous personality consumed with hatred, not everything that went wrong for the Germans strategically were his fault.

There is an easy tendency by German generals and generally those ill-disposed to Soviet war effort to blame everything on him. "If only Hitler hadn't made this and this mistake, the Soviet Union would have been beaten".

Sorry, but a German victory was never possible. That became clear within about 6 months of the start of Operation Barbarossa, when the Germans were turned back from Moscow. After that it was only a matter of time. If anything, Hitler's obstinacy and fanaticism saved the German Army from panic and rout in Dec 1941.

Hitler did make a mistake that led to his defeat. The mistake was terribly underestimating Soviet Union, to say nothing of the USA waiting in the background. Once Germany attacked the Soviet Union in summer 1941, the fate of the Third Reich was pretty much sealed.

Steel2009 (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

That is a surprise. After finishing another rebuke further down, this is all quite refreshing. But at the risk of ruining it…. To say a German (actually Axis) victory was never possible is not sensible. There is no such thing as inevitability in military history. It was unlikely, but not impossible. I doubt they would have destroyed the USSR as a military political and economic entity entirely, but had Case Blue been successful, 80 percent of Soviet oil production would have fallen into Axis hands. The Germans may have been able to create conditions for a stalemate. 13:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Dapi... it is not at all hard for me to agree with you if I think you are right, because to me this is not personal. All your "rebukes" do is to tell me more about your state of mind, than anything about me. In fact the only impact they may ever have is to get you banned, something for you to keep in mind. As for whether Hitler could have reached a stalemate, that is just speculation, both on your part and mine... so I will leave it at that. Steel2009 (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with my state of mind, steel. Debate becomes heated when people are passionate (like me) about the subject. It strays into something else when people making seemingly disingenuous and provocative statements. Rebukes are in reply to irritant comments, so I would say dismiss your position once again I'm afraid (I also note that the notice board has as well).

But onto more important matters: speculation doesn't exist just on wikipedia, historians do it as well. Such debate is generally made in books when dealing with the decisiveness of the Stalingrad battle. So this is worthy of inclusion as and where necessary. Dapi89 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Italicization and quotation of the word "blitzkrieg"

In most of the article, and even in some subject headings, the term "blitzkrieg" is presented in italics, in quotes, or both, and often with the first letter capitalized as it is in German. This might be appropriate to a foreign word which has seen very limited usage in English.

I have a rather elderly edition of the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1983) whose addendum includes the word, which had by then long entered common English usage.

Since the word is so long accepted in the language, it seems sensible to me hat we should use the word as a normal English noun, without italicization, capitalization or quotation marks, except when referring speficically to the German noun, Blitzkrieg. --TS 16:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I keep looking at the article and think about trying to address this. Testing the water; what do other editors think about Tony's proposal? It seems logical to me. Hohum (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Cutting Tank section

I think this needs looking at. The tank played an important role, but it was the use of motorised infantry, mobile artillery and air support that were the key to German methods. The tank was never considered anything more than a support weapon. Unlike the British army, which considered the tank able to anything and everything, produced tank- heavy armour units that had insufficient infantry support and failed tactically. I think more stress on combined arms (the real hallmark of German tactics) should be made. Dapi89 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please re-write?

Can someone with the energy, sources, and time please re-write this entire article? In its current state it is one crappy article. The flow of the article is terrible, and the lay reader is bombarded by a lot of obscure theories. There are all kinds of absurd statements based on single sources like "The German armament industry did not mobilize until 1944". Really? What does "mobilize" mean to the lay reader? Is the lay reader to conclude that the "German armament industry" waited for any entire year after Stalingrad before "mobilizing"??? Were the Germans so comfortable in 1943 (Stalingrad and Kursk) that they thought that the armament industry did not need to reach maximum performance??? Quite honestly, with all these quirks, this article is a great disservice to Wiki readers. Steel2009 (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

It means what it says. If you need help to figure out what mobilisation means you really are in trouble. Dapi89 (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You should have realized by now that making everything personal is not going to get you any victories on Wiki. As for mobilize, here is what you get when you ask Google and follow the "definition" link to get a meaning. "If a country mobilizes, or mobilizes its armed forces, or if its armed forces mobilize, they are given orders to prepare for a conflict."

Now mobilize may mean something else to you, but to the lay person the Google meaning is more relevant. So from the article as we now have it, it appears that the armament industry was not particularly aware that a war was going on till 1944??? Steel2009 (talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

There are degrees of mobilization. The degree which is intended to be described as in this case, should be more clearly articulated. Hohum (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the word mobilize should be explained, the bland statement "The German armament industry did not mobilize until 1944" is misleading. Goebbels declared "Total War" after Stalingrad, and the copper cladding over the Brandenburg Gate was removed for use in war industry (Beevor). If to the lay reader this isn't mobilization, I don't know what is? The entire section "Blitzkrieg Economics" is clutter and should be deleted. Steel2009 (talk) 21:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't. Mobilise means what it says. The German economy was not mobilised meaning it was not on a war footing. Goebbels speech is irrelevant - just propaganda. Blitzkrieg economics is important to the article as it disproves the notion that the German economic-military strategy was based on Blitzkrieg methods. Your suggestion to delete just exposes your extreme ignorance. Then again, it is probably another attempt to provoke. Dapi89 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Please re-acquaint yourself with the WP:CIVIL policy, and then WP:GOODFAITH.

On the subject of mobilisation. Even before the war, the German economy had been making far more military hardware than most other peace-time nations. There are clearly levels of mobilisation, and this part of the article is unclear to a typical encyclopaedia reader. I don't know why you take any criticism of the phrasing of this article so personally. Many of us put a lot of time and effort into this project. Hohum (talk) 16:25, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true, and it is breaking neither.

Perhaps Hohum, it is because I have contributed more than most? And this guy knows it.

I strongly disagree. The German production levels were not as high as the United States, France or the Soviet Union. Britain overtook them in June 1940 (mostly because they had to). Establishing levels of German mobilisation within general guidelines applicable to anyone is difficult because German production went up and down like a yo-yo. Partly through shortages, logistics, and the bombing. But there were few clear directives that shifted from one to the other. German production went up in drips and drabs and reached a peak in 1944 which was comparable to the Allies. Even then it wasn’t full mobilisation. One could argue that the German economy did not fully mobilise at all. One might even say the German economy did not mobilise beyond peacetime readiness at all until December 1941. Thereafter it dragged itself slowly towards what people call a 'total war' footing. One cannot use propaganda speeches and gestures by politcal personalities as a yard-stick to measure where and when these things happned. Particularly not in the chaotic environment that was the Third Reich Economy. Dapi89 (talk) 18:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't play games. Saying another editor is extremely ignorant is clearly in breach of WP:CIVIL. Everyone needs to abide by it. You are not special and different.

Since you just took a paragraph to explain that there are, indeed, levels of mobilisation, it warrants additional clarity in the article. You just used the term "full mobilisation" to differentiate between levels. Hohum (talk) 14:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not the childish one. If you don't want answers you don't like, stop presenting wiki rules and regulations where they are not warranted.

I'm at pains to point out again that there was no clear level of mobilisation. I used the term "full mobilisation" to make my own point. The term has nothing to do with he article and its inclusion there would be misleading given what I've already explained. Dapi89 (talk) 18:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Aside from the discussion over the meaning of "mobilization", this article has some serious problems. There is a wealth of fantastic information here, but the structure of the article is confusing, and I suspect that most high school students trying to read this would be left utterly confused. For example, the discussion of "blitzkrieg economics" starts near the beginning of the article, and is spread over 3 different sections. There is much discussion of the more modern sources, but I'm left without a clear concept of what the original 1960s idea of "blitzkrieg economy" entailed. I'd like to suggest restructuring the article like so:

• Classic Blitzkrieg (with basic history of invasions of Poland, France, and how it was interpreted at the time)
• Technical details of the classic blitzkrieg interpretation (drawn from the current Methods and Limitations sections)
• History of how German military tactics developed and were subsequently used, interspersed with the more modern interpretations of Overy & Freiser.

Okay, after typing this, I already realize that my suggestion sucks, and it would be very difficult to fit all the information we have into this structure. Anyone got any better ideas? I would suggest trying to find a way to reduce the article from it's current 8 sections down to 3 or 4 which somehow flow into each other logically (ie, the later sections will make more sense once you've read the preceding ones, and reading the whole article will give you a fairly complete summary of the topic). --Jonovision (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonovision, I agree, the article is poorly structured, but does have plenty of worthy information too. "Mobilisation", I think, was just a single off-the-cuff example. However, even that caused argument, so whoever attempts to reorganise this article is going to need infinite patience, and/or a more co-operative attitude from other editors. As it stands, this former Featured Article is in danger of dropping below B class.

Hopefully we can build it into something better between us all. Hohum (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The former featured article may have been better structured, but it was crap with a capital C. It bought into the myth and failed the reader. If Hohum would like better cooperation, perhaps he and his ally should avoid provocations and wikilawyering?

I appreciate the new editor's suggestions. I don't think the first attempt was that bad. I think that all operation histories should be chopped. Given the method did not exist, I think this article should expose the myths as the academics have done. perhaps a single section explaining how Poland and France were not Blitzkrieg - and just a reference to the EF? Just a start. Dapi89 (talk) 18:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

So much for WP:AGF. Presenting established guidance and policy is neither wikilawyering nor provocative. Constantly making accusations clearly is provocative. I have called steel out on specious edits when I have seen them else-article. Can we get beyond the tedious, off topic accusations against editors please. Hohum (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the older version. I see now that most of the older material has been preserved in the new article, which explains the unusual structure. I'm not particularly impressed with the older version, either, even though it was featured. I should admit that I have a huge bias when it comes to history articles. I would much rather read about the view of a topic has changed over time, and I don't like collections of dates and facts without interpretation.

If we agree that blitzkrieg is no more than a fuzzy term that's been thrown about by various writers, then I support Dapi's suggestion that we should limit the amount material about operation history. My personal opinion is that it's better to have an in-depth discussion of a single operation rather than a bit of information about five different ones. I find the invasion of France to be the most interesting, since it was one of the most surprising defeats of the war. However, I don't think we should necessarily limit ourselves to only discussing why it was not blitzkrieg, as you suggested. If blitzkrieg is indeed a fuzzy term, that gives us a lot of freedom to shape the article into something that's interesting to new readers who might not know about the history of World War 2. I would not all mind if the article contained some general musings over the changing nature of technology and tactics during the period, even if "blitzkrieg" is not the proper term for these subjects.

I'd love to hear what everyone thinks! --Jonovision (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

In popular usage, the word "blitzkrieg" and the derivative word "blitz" [[2]] refer to a "quick attack", "sudden overwhelming attack", etc. I understand that to some historians the term may have specific meaning, but an encyclopedia should discuss common usage first and then specialized meanings later. All the controversy about how this word is defined by specific historians does not belong here, beyond a cursory mention. Just my opinion of course. Steel2009 (talk) 08:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Jonovision, I was talking about your first suggestion not the old version in the article!, i.e, your suggestion wasn't that bad. To your comment: I would much rather read about the view of a topic has changed over time, and I don't like collections of dates and facts without interpretation - this is what I had tried to do, but met resistance over various things. I have some comments (post-war) from General Staff members and strategic planners in the OKW that expressly deny any "Blitzkrieg" method for long-term German ambitions in Europe. They very ruff guide in the article is meant to provide just key categories which alone expose the myth.

Steel: I disagree. Our job here is not to reinforce ignorance/popular perception, which is nearly always myth. Our job here is to explain what this thing actually is, or in this case, is not. If you include the popular image first and leave the academic position at the bottom, there is a danger people will miss it or fail to understand it. Dapi89 (talk) 16:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to correct popular misconceptions, but your preference of one position (academic over popular) can start seeming like WP:OR. Anyway I will WP:AGF about your efforts and not contest your overall view of the page as you obviously have spent a lot more time on this page. However specific issues, like the use of the word "mobilize" should be corrected. And a Happy New 2010 to you, Hohum, Jonovision and MisterBee. Steel2009 (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

"If you include the popular image first and leave the academic position at the bottom, there is a danger people will miss it or fail to understand it."

That is why articles have lead sections, to summarize the contents. Anyone reading the lead should now see the article initially talks about the common perception, but that there is significant controversy about it. Hopefully the article will now draw novices in to read more, rather than initially baffling them with what was previously rather unstructured. Hohum (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to attempt to make another possible outline for revising this article, based on everyone's suggestions so far. The key suggestions have been: limiting the amount of operational history, avoiding reinforcing inaccurate views, and making an article that will draw in and educate even novices to the subject. So here it goes, including a very rough draft of a possible article introduction:

Blitzkrieg (German, "lightning war") is a swift and sudden military offensive in which overwhelming force (including tanks and air power) is used to quickly defeat an enemy. The term became widely used during World War II, when the German army used newly developed tactics of tank warfare to inflict a swift and humiliating defeat against Poland in 1939 and France in 1940. Few people anticipated that both countries would each be defeated in little more than a month, and the term blitzkrieg came into common usage when discussing German military strategy. Although the term remains widely used, many historians have now concluded that the German war effort was never guided by a cohesive blitzkrieg strategy, and that only in hindsight did such a myth emerge.

• Development of German Military (short)
• Invasion of Poland and/or France (short and directed towards the novice reader)
• Origins of the Blitzkrieg term & myth (origins, Sternberg, Guderian, Hart)
• More about what various historians have to say
• Further reading: other battles (eastern front, africa), more technical details of German tactics, anything else...'

So that's all I've got so far. This is extremely rough so I'd appreciate any and all suggestions! --Jonovision (talk) 07:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If you re-write the article as outlined above, it would be a huge improvement. Steel2009 (talk) 12:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. The explanation of the word from the get go dispells the myth, but there are huge POV issues with the version and much of it is uncitable. I also don't agree with the structure. The current one is much better (sorry). Dapi89 (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything should be cited, and there has been no suggestion that it won't be. An entire controversy section is enough to counter myths. Hohum (talk) 18:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Care to address the other points? Structure? Style? Dapi89 (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dapi, can you go into a bit more detail? Which version has huge POV issues, and what specifically is uncitable? --Jonovision (talk) 08:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainly, it is just the use of words which are not neutral sounding (they sound biblical). I think the term needs to be dealt with immediately (as in the current version). It also verges on an acceptance of the term, then discussing the problems historians had with the term. The use of the word "tactics" doesn't help. There needs to be dicussion about operational and strategic levels, if only to include those words in that line. The stuff re:Poland and France is contradicted by academics and this article. Blitzkrieg was an afterthough; you'll note the original German plans in the west looked for a land grab and establishing a front line along the Somme as a prelude for major offensives in 1941 and 42. This of course is before Manstein got Hitler's attention. Dapi89 (talk) 23:47, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dapi, can you let me know what words are not neutral sounding or biblical, so I can attempt to improve my suggested changes? Also, just to be clear, are you completely opposed to my proposal for having a short section with some basic history? Or are you just more concerned with what that section might contain after it has been written? --Jonovision (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey Dapi, are you still reading this thread? --Jonovision (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot about it. I'm not oppossed to that. I think the intro should include the following summary:

• The nature of the name/ its origin
• What it is meant to describe (but avoid using terms like doctrine or official terminology)
• Limitations and flaws of this methodology
• German strategic intent (not Blitzkrieg) and debate, i.e the dubious nature of "Blitzkrieg concept". Dapi89 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Terror elements.

I have provided a cited reference to terror elements attributed to "Blitzkrieg". More can be found but the current one is verifiable and reliable. Removing it is unacceptable. A lack of mention of terror tactics in German doctrine (a primary source) has not stopped this historian from making his own conclusions in a secondary source, which is what wikipedia relies on. Hohum (talk) 22:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Fieser's phrase is a throw away and careless remark. I've provided irrefutable evidence "terror" elements did not exist in any Luftwaffe doctrine. And YOU removed sources, not me. The Corum citation, cites his own conclusion, based on primary evidence. This is a secondary source which has been more thoroughly researched than Friesers on this particular point. Dapi89 (talk) 18:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Your conclusion that Fiesler's remark is "throw away and careless" is your own synthesis which isn't supported by the source, nor allowable via wikipedia criteria. Your evidence says that there was no policy. Fiesler clearly concluded that Blitzkrieg had significant terror aspects irrespective of policy.

That said, the current phrasing is balanced, though gramatically awkward. Hohum (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No Hohum. The fact is there was no deliberate terror policy. What is difficult to understand about this? Frieser has not gone into sufficient detail to make that kind of claim. For that reason alone it isn't good enough. So it ain't my conclusion. Dapi89 (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. I have provided one that concludes it had terror elements whether it was policy or not. Deal with it. Your personal appraisal of Frieser is irrelevant. He's a reliable source.

And I'll repeat, the current balance of wording is acceptable, although grammatically awkward. Hohum (talk) 02:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're a contradiction in terms. In case you hadn't noticed, I provided a better one - a specialist dealing with air power. So I wasn't appraising him through self opinion, but through another, better researched source. And may I say, a more balanced one on that particular point. Dapi89 (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A book specifically on Blitzkrieg versus a book about aircraft. Which one to use an a Blitzkrieg article? Tricky. Hohum (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Corum is also an authority on Blitzkrieg. That's irrelevant. There was no "Blitzkrieg Luftwaffe". No terror bombing until 1942. Besides, terror is reserved for attacks on civilians. Morale attacks on armed forces are psychological. Dapi89 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point on Corum. However, when reliable sources disagree, the convention on wikipedia is to include both (all) non fringe sources. Hohum (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair point. Hence the correction to the passage. Let's kill this. Dapi89 (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dunkirk

The Article states that it was a counter-attack that saved the British expeditionary forces (and others) in Dunkirk. That is simply not true: What saved these men was that Hitler never intended to attack Britain. He wanted to send out a Signal to Britain that Germany had no business with Britain and that they should back off. Hitler ordered the pause in pursuit, which his Generals like Rommel saw as a great mistake. It would have been easy to crush the British Forces in Dunkirk and that would have effectively ended the war for Britain. Truth is, as in the first World War that it was not German Aggression that lead to the Conflict but power-struggles on both sides. Of course the Winner writes the history Books afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.189.215 (talk) 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Pointless

I made a point that the sentence "The German armament industry did not fully mobilize until 1944, and this has led to some historians in the 1960s, particularly Alan Milward, to develop a theory of "Blitzkrieg" economics" was misleading to readers and either the sentence should be reworked or the word mobilize explained.

Hohum supported with what I said noting "There are clearly levels of mobilisation, and this part of the article is unclear to a typical encyclopaedia reader."

After waiting for a few weeks, I changed the sentence to "Some historians in the 1960s, particularly Alan Milward, developed a theory of "Blitzkrieg" economics." with the note "Use of the word "mobilize" is incorrect unless further explanation is provided."

Today I find that Dapi has reverted my edit with the comment "Alan Milward led the way."???!!! This comment makes no sense, I had left the part about Milward in the sentence unchanged.

This article is not owned by any particular editor, and such behavior should stop. More respect is due to the arguments advanced by editors and the discussions on the talk page. Dapi's behavior is a serious impediment to efforts by other editors to improve this article.

Steel2009 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. I am the only one keeping things as they should be. Correcting your edit: You changed to a line which is incorrect. Alan Milward invented the idea, and it was not largely adopted. I can't think of another historian that has endorsed it. Writing "some", when in fact there isn't any, is wrong. If you cite fine, if not stop complaining. It is your behaviour that's the problem. I shall not allow you to drag me into another one of your distored debates about what is acceptable and what is not. Since when is correcting sources and adding them "ownership". Grow up and starting debating with points about the article rather than other editors. Dapi89 (talk) 00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, it is the exact same wording as the source. Dapi89 (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not put in the phrase "some historians", it was already there. So to say that it is "wrong" of me to use it is wrong. And by the way, the revert of my edit that you did has the same phrase "some historians", so you really can't be serious about your objection to my edit.

Look, I am ready to have a reasonable discussion. But if the discussion is of this standard then it is hard to continue it or accomplish anything positive.

Steel2009 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. So much so I'm ignoring it. I've reverted the title again. Blatant provocation is disruptive. CEASE AND DESIST. Dapi89 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Infiltration tactics

A recent edit made by an IP contains a series of inaccurate information. Infiltration tactics were not conformed into doctrine at that time. Clausewitz and the Napoleon era Prussians had not developed this, Moltke the Elder did so some 40 years later. There was also no "front" to puncture, that came about in the 20th Century during the Russo-Japanese war. Wars until then were mobile, with no static fronts. And "nerve centre", I assume this means the centre of gravity - which is infact the enemy army itself. There was no singe nerve centre. Field armies and captial cities were considered centre's of gravity, at least by the Prussians until 1870. Dapi89 (talk) 03:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Anglicized word

The very first sentence states that blitzkrieg "is an anglicized word describing..." I found this confusing, since I'd expect that there must be a non-anglicized or native-German version of the word. But there doesn't appear to be. I've looked through the wiki entry on Anglicisation, and unless there is some exception going on here, it seems that blitzkrieg is not an anglicized word (sounds German to me). If it is, then I think it'd be useful to have the non-anglicized version at the beginning, next to the pronunciation. Cheers, General Epitaph (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a loanword, which I believe is a form of Anglicisation, but perhaps it would be clearer to call it that. However, websters specifically calls it an anglicized word.(Hohum ^@) 00:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. I'll leave it up to the judgement of the more-experienced editors of this article. I just wanted to point out the confusion I had, since other readers might have also encountered it. Cheers, General Epitaph (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg , Generally understood in English to mean 'lightning warfare', although most people use and understand 'blitzkrieg' as a loan word. e.g. 'blitz' in American football. Its being used as early as 1939 by English language newspapers: NY TIMES: "REICH 'BLITZKRIEG' IS NOW RULED OUT; French and British Readiness Make 'Lightning' Success of Germans Impossible By GASTON H. ARCHAMBAULT Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES", September 04, 1939, NYT Sept 17, "BERLIN, Sept. 16--The sensational and unexpectedly quick success of the German armies in Poland has enlarged the English language with another German wordBlitzkrieg". "Deseret News April, 1940, http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=kK9TAAAAIBAJ&sjid=hocDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6252,3717942&dq=blitzkrieg&hl=en , St Petersburg Times, 1940 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=mjgmAAAAIBAJ&sjid=RU0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=7027,807728&hl=en Tttom1 (talk) 04:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

A quick look on Amazon in German Dictionaries shows Cassell's p.122 and Webster's p.84 have entries for blitzkkrieg, further the footnote (1) given in the article does not say that the word is an anglicization, only that the use of lower case 'b' is for anglicized German nouns. While technically correct, its unnecessary and somewhat misleading to emphasize this esoteric aspect in the lede and it should be removed, or at least moved down to the controversy section as it suggests that the word is an invention of english. I will move it unless there is some reasonable argument here for its presence in the lede.Tttom1 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Some of your posts here are dreadfully confused over the matter. I utterly oppose your removal of this information. I am quite happy to give sources.

Just to clear a basic point that seems to have lost itself on you; Blitzkrieg was not used by the German Army or popular press at all prior to 1940 (after the defeat of France). Even then it was not used very often by the Army. The word entered military and popular terminology because of the British press. It had and has no root in military art or in German popular culture. It was just a popular phrase used by non-military people to describe battle. That is the point. Dapi89 (talk) 14:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Tttom1 - "...but anglicized German nouns may be written with a small initial letter (blitzkrieg)..." - How exactly can that not be interpreted to mean that blitzkrieg is not anglicized, it's specifically given as an example of one. There is no controversy presented. (Hohum ^@) 22:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so. I will clarify that in the lede now.Tttom1 (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. Reverted you and added work of Fanning. The Origin of the Term "Blitzkrieg": Another View, The Journal of Military History, Vol. 61, No. 2 (Apr., 1997), pp. 283-302. Dapi89 (talk) 10:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

So sorry had to revert your edit as the statement was a referenced one and the edit expressly stated what the 'anglicization' was in the case of 'blitzkrieg' as specifically stated in the source. I still think this is overly esoteric and should not be in the lede or, for that matter, in the article at all. If it remains in the lede it has to not be misleading, if moved to a section on the etymology of Blitzkrieg in German and English that would make more sense and give leeway for a discussion of the word but still be very picayune. Perhaps the whole thing should be rendered as a footnote to Blitzkrieg for those interested in the etymological arguments about its origin.Tttom1 (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I reverted back. Until this discussion is through, I think it should stay. And you don't have a consensus.

Despite your sniping on other sections, I'm willing to cooperate with a) a devoted section b) a footnote. I would rather a section. I insist something go in the intro' akin to the word being a popular press invented phrase (UK and German) and that its origins are disputed. Dapi89 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Tttom, your edit made no sense. "...is a German word& anglicized by changing upper case 'B' to lower case 'b'".

No, that is not how something is anglicized... that is just the way an anglicized word is represented, as opposed to a foreign word being in italics, or a proper noun being capitalized. What makes it anglicized is its common usage in the English language, which only requires a brief sentence, which we have. (Hohum ^@) 20:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The original reference from Webster's used in the link in the article states: "German nouns may be written with a small (or 'lower case' for the type face deficient) when anglicized, with the examples: blitzkrieg, gestalt and other words. It clearly says that a German common noun's initial letter is usually capitalized (upper case) when not anglicized. I won't edit war, I made a good faith original edit preceded by discussion and reverted your revert - that's only 2 reverts - yours is 3, but you have no consensus either and I think a section on its etymology is a more appropriate place for this. Doughty (Robert A. Doughty Myth of the Blitzkrieg in Challenging the United States Symmetrically and Asymmetrically) p.58 says: "William J. Fanning demonstrated in an article in War & Society, however, that the word “Blitzkrieg” appeared occasionally between 1936 and 1937 and stemmed from the widespread use—in several languages—of the term “lightning” to describe the speed and power of modern armies in the late 1930s." While interesting and enlightening (they make a great start on an etymology section) the notes don't explain what anglicization is, use of lower case for the initial letter of a german common noun.Tttom1 (talk) 05:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

This section should be deleted or replaced by an intelligent discussion of how many angels fit on the head of a pin. The fact is that what happened, happened, and no number of academics can change that.

I think the section needs to be redone, it doesn't sound neutral at all, more like a personal opinion. It says "many historians", but only a single source is given. From M. Citino, a man who wrote several pieces about the Blitzkrieg & with Blitzkrieg in his title. I haven't read his works, but there is no booked titled "the myth of blitzkrieg". It should be edited to remove the personal opinion (which seems to interprete too much). 77.11.160.137 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. The section is cited from a whole host of historians. Some are very well known. Have you bothered to look at the bibliography? Have you read the quotes provided? And yes there is. Frieser's The Blitzkrieg Legend and Harris' The Blitzkrieg Myth. None of its is based on personal opinion. Please look up the definition of neutral. It should stay as it is. As far as I can see, the only self-opinion here is yours. Dapi89 (talk) 15:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with with the first post, 'many' and 'some' are weasel words, two or three is not many given the vast amount of literature on WW2 that accepts and discusses blitzkrieg, NPOV doesn't support undue weight to a minority position.Tttom1 (talk) 04:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your agreement is irrelevant. 'Minority position'? Absurd. These points are the dominant arguments. It is totally ridiculous to call it a minority position. These things are now entrenched in the historiography of this subject. And the definition of 'some' and 'many' are justified considering the enormous amount of data on offer the goes through all these points - the definition os some is more than two by the way. Your complaints only demonstrate a lack of understanding. Dapi89 (talk)

Weasel words are weasel words as per wiki MOS, 'some' and 'many'. My agreement is an attempt to move towards consensus on this. I see you are very committed to advancing the minority position that Blitzkrieg is a myth, but you are giving it undue weight and confusing users of wikipedia with this theory. Even German wikipedia has an article of Blitzkrieg. That the type of warfare is perhaps named after, or during, the fact isn't the foremost relevant element here, after all, we don't argue that World War One is a myth because it wasn't called WWI until there was WW2.Tttom1 (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You're not listening and forgive me for saying so, but you seem to have no idea what you're talking about. The sources provided are thte tip of the iceberg. Further, I'm tired of dealing with know nothings on this subject, so entrenched with popular belief, so resistant to academic study that disputes their long-held views, shaped by a few old histories which are totally debunked by a mass of new data. Your attempt at an example makes no sense. Sorry. And lastly, don't you dare call me agenda driven. Dapi89 (talk) 10:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I can see by your other posts and edits that its difficult for you to be civil. You are advancing one theory, which - as I check at least one source - Doughty's Myth of the Blitzkrieg doesn't seem to sustain your extended view of the myth that borders on OR. For example Doughty quotes Geyer: "[T]he officers got their ideas about the new ‘strategy’ where everybody else got them as well. They saw themselves in the newsreels and in the movies doing the right thing.” Thus, myth outweighed reason, and the Germans confidently expected the whole world to share their unshakable faith in their invincibility and — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tttom (talk • contribs)

.....and what?

It is difficult to be civil in the face of ignorance. You have offered nothing but opinion. Yet I, someone who cites everything he does on wikipedia, has to put up your bullshit assertions about me and my intentions.

I think under the circumstances I'm doing well.

OR? Absolute nonsense.

I challange you to find any book or journal article (military) that denounces the modern historians' view that Blitzkrieg is a myth. Tertiary sources don't count.

Your complaints are feeble. Who on earth is "Doughty"? I have never cited nor heard of him. Dapi89 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If you find it difficult to be civil in the face of ignorance, perhaps wikipedia isn't the best place to be ;). WP:CIVIL isn't optional. It's pretty easy to not type things, unless you have no self control at all. While you have spent a great deal of effort on this article, you don't own it. That is not to say I agree with Tttom, but you could just as easily only replied only with "I challange you to find any book or journal article (military) that denounces the modern historians' view that Blitzkrieg is a myth. Tertiary sources don't count."

(Hohum ^@) 20:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

If I'm unjustly insulted, I'm entitled to make a robust defence.

I never said I did. These articles are owned by the sources, which is precisely my argument.

I'm glad you don't (seem) to agree with this person. Dapi89 (talk) 20:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

"and the Germans confidently expected the whole world to share their unshakable faith in their invincibility and in the Blitzkrieg." Sorry I couldn't get the rest of the comment in earlier. Later Doughty comments p.66: "Consequently, the capability to launch a Blitzkrieg attack was not what convinced Hitler to charge eastward; instead, the capability only added to his confidence and encouraged him to launch such an attack earlier than he might otherwise have done so." Doesn't sound like a myth seems Doughty thinks there was Blitzkrieg and thinks the Germans thought there was as well. The title The Myth of the Blitzkrieg says it, there was Blitzkrieg but there is mythologizing of Blitzkrieg by those involved, particularly in the beginning of the war. Robert A. Doughty Myth of the Blitzkrieg in Challenging the United States Symmetrically and Asymmetrically.Tttom1 (talk) 05:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Also from the bibliography section of this article: Doughty, Robert A. (1990) The Breaking Point: Sedan and the Fall of France, 1940. Hamden: Archon Books. ISBN 0208022813. I guess you just overlooked it in the rush to put forth your own views.Tttom1 (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Rubbish.

Laughable. No where does he discuss the concept. Do you actually understand why we are having this debate and what it is actually about? Have you bothered to read Richard Overy, Adam Tooze, John Keegan, Karl-Heinz Frieser? Naveh? Cooper? Harris? Corum? Robert M. Citino? I didn't think so. If you had, you wouldn't be bringing this up.

Your attempt at an example is appalling. Not only does he not discuss the concept, at all in the phrase given, he does not discuss the controversy surrounding it. All you've done is to pick out any old phrase in which the word is used to suggest the author's acceptance of the concept. And you have accused me of being selective! What a joke.

I hope you never try your hand at being a historian. Dapi89 (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Its true, my ignorance about about the great faux-Blitzkrieg conspiracy is vast, but easily cured by reading a couple of articles, sadly, your type of ignorance is not so easily cured and is likely terminal.Tttom1 (talk) 14:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

A puerile response to be sure. I really don’t trust the judgment of someone who employs WP: Synthesis – badly – and offers as 'evidence', something like the above quote – which is irrelevant to this discussion. 'A couple of articles' will not help you understand this subject. You need proper sources from academics that treat it in detail. I don't and didn't expect you to understand even that basic research process. Not surprisingly, ignorance of the subject in this event becomes chronic, and you don't help this article. Get back to me when you have read those authors’ work mentioned. I won't comment on that last sentence, though it is useful indicator that you have no other sensible criticism to offer this debate revealing only the feebleness of your complaint and the bankruptcy of your arguments. The sources have spoken. Dapi89 (talk) 15:15, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, my apologies.Tttom1 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

An attempt at constructive critisism

As is previously stated, this article is quite a mess, unworthy of a subject central to WW2 warfare and beyond.

The way I see the current article, it's built up with "classical" Blitzkrieg material in the first half, or thereabouts, with the second half used to question or debunk what is written in the first half. Another matter is the complete lack of perspective. The article "ends" in 1945 and the reader of the entire article (me) gets a strange feeling that this article - or the concept of blitzkrieg - could be boiled down to "Blitzkrieg? Doesn't exist". If one looks at operations post 1945, the six-day war is "classic" blitzkrieg, just as the 2nd gulf war was analogous to Germanys operations in 39-41 and were inspired by these. I would propose that the article, rather than say what Blitzkrieg meant in popular belief regarding 1939-45 - and that this popular belief is flawed at best, goes into detail of what is meant by Blitzkrieg [i]today[/i]. This would allow for a more through description of the method/doctrine of blitzkrieg, but also tell of the "early development" (which may have been done with more or less intent/structure - but nevertheless). These developments - or experiences - were later analyzed, grouped and developed further into what is today known as Blitzkrieg - using modern examples. The way the "controversy"-section takes up about half the article, well, it doesn't really merit such. I realize that a lot of work went into the controversy-section, but that is hardly reason for inclusion. Mind you, the points of the "controversy" should be incorporated into the article, but it shouldn't dominate it and in effect rendering the article useless. (It's a bit like spending paragraph after paragraph on "the black death" as transferred by vermin and sailors rather than being a punishment from God, expanding on why this divine punishment is not likely or demonstrably untrue - despite it was seen as a devine punishment for decades, if not centuries after it happned.)--Nwinther (talk) 14:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

What makes you think this article is finished?

What makes you think the Americans and Israelis deliberately copied the Germans? Could it be they did their own thing? Based on suitable terrain for tank-air cooperation?

I'd much rather have another article named 'Bewegunskrieg' to distinguish it from Blitzkrieg given it is specifically mentioned in doctrine and the Prussians and Second Reich really did base their strategy on quick wars - unlike the Third Reich, which is what this article focusing on.

Anyway, if there is no doctrine related to Blitzkrieg then one cannot claim that Israel or the Americans revisited the method. Combatants tend to attempt quick victory in limited wars, so there is nothing new about a rapid advance with tanks, infantry supported by air power. Are we to attribute any like-minded method with Blitzkrieg? Why not Cambrai?

While this article is far from complete and perfect, it is quite clear the Blitzkrieg is not a doctrine. It was never in doctrinal manuals. Most German doctrine expressed a desire for limited and deliberate offensives designed to achieve a preset strategic goal-that is until 1940. The plans for the invasion of France are a prime example. It underwent loads of changes and did not form into a plan for decisive victory until Erich von Manstein suddenly got Hitler's attention in Feb 1940. Until then it was nothing more than a land grab in the Netherlands and Flanders –hardly ‘Blitzkrieg’.

I disagree with your assertions about the controversy section. Blitzkrieg is by definition controversial. Suggesting it doesn’t belong here is nonsense.

So as I see it, 1) You need to prove the Blitzkrieg was a doctrine in order to write about its alleged use post December 1944

and 2) You need to focus on the alleged origins of the German stuff. Forget the Americans and Israelis. If you can't prove there was a Blitzkrieg doctrine, or at the very least a thought out method of Blitzkrieg in Germany in 1933-45, then you can't argue, with any legitimacy, the 1967/73/91/03 campaigns were a carbon copy. Or else every war which involved tanks and aircraft plus a quick victory will be equated to 'Blitzkrieg'. Dapi89 (talk) 21:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Just some thoughts. I would think that a Bewegungskrieg-article would be a good idea (mobile warfare would be another name for it). But I don't see it replacing the need for an explanation (article) of the concept of Blitzkrieg. After all, this article is not about what the germans printed in their field-manuals or in their orders and planning. It's an article about what Blitzkrieg means. That there wasn't a printed manual named "Blitzkrieg" used in Germany in 1939 doesn't mean that the notion doesn't exist. Just like "Impressionism" wasn't and isn't a fixed doctrine of painting, it doesn't seem to stop the writers of the Impressionism-article.

Regarding the Israeli and US uses of Blitzkrieg-methods, you'd have to be selectively blind and/or ignorant of how the military works to reject the entire notion of this being a valid approach. Hannibal never published a "Cannae"-doctrine, yet it didn't stop generations of military historians and commanders both studying and encorporating Hannibals method. Norman Schwarzkopf, Jr. tried a maneuver a la Cannae in Desert Storm. But since Hannibal didn't publish his doctrine this can't be true? Military academies study dozens of historical battles and incorporates the methods without any need for a doctrine to do so. Remarkable, no?

IMO, Blitzkrieg is not represented with Battle of France, and the lack of a doctrine at that point (or at any other point, really) doesn't exclude the concept of blitzkrieg. It may exclude it as a finished doctrine at that particular point in time and space - but that's not the point of this article.

The modern understanding of Blitzkrieg has its roots in the German operations from 1939-1944. Whether or not it was a doctrine at that point, or if it is really an incremential development of another doctrine - or just an old doctrine fought with new weapons (which can't be the case - the Germans didn't have any weapons their enemies didn't have as well) - it is not the crucial point in this article. The use of concentrated armour in coordination with air and artillery going for a deep and surprising penetration, disregarding the flanks, came about in 1940 in the Battle of France, and was used again and again by the Germans - and since by other forces. This term has been coined "Blitzkrieg". That scolars point out that the Germans didn't have a (finished) doctrine called such, is not inherently relevant to this article, and certainly doens't merit thousands of words. It could be mentioned (in a more NPOV-language IMO) in the article in a manner such as:

"Modern understanding of Blitzkrieg originates from the German operations in the first half of World War 2. While Blitzkrieg was not an established or even developed doctrine, it became the term used about the Germans original use of concentrated armour, often in coordination with the Luftwaffe, attacking deep into the enemy rear creating confusion and cutting lines of communications."

That way, it is explicitly said, that it wasn't a finished doctrine, yet recognizes the shock and surprise that the Germans achieved, using new (or different) tactics etc. - eventually coining the term Blitzkrieg. And the article can move along.

I realize that you have a great personal need to promote the debunking of the popular understanding of a German doctrine, economy etc. revolving around the word Blitzkrieg. But I don't see that this is the place to do it and especially not to the extent it is at currently.--Nwinther (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

1. That there wasn't a printed manual named "Blitzkrieg" used in Germany in 1939 doesn't mean that the notion doesn't exist –I’m sorry, but this just doesn’t make sense to me. Blitzkrieg is professed by the ill-informed as a ‘doctrine’ a ‘tactic’ and a series of though-out operations, and worse a ‘strategy’. A notion by definition implies a ‘Blitzkrieg mentality’ at best, which suggests this is how the Third Reich was going to carry out its military campaigns. Besides, if it was not in doctrine, if it was not planned; i.e the Germans did not intend to conquer Europe by the use of Blitzkrieg, then the point is invalid.

2. Regarding the Israeli and US uses of Blitzkrieg-methods, you'd have to be selectively blind and/or ignorant of how the military works to reject the entire notion of this being a valid approach – again this doesn’t make sense either.

As I have already said; when it comes to influence there is no simple answer. What ‘methods’ are you referring to? That they looked vaguely similar, because there were a large number of tanks and aircraft present, and it happened to be over quickly? What about Hannibal? Since the dawn of time to the present human beings have endeavoured to encircle and destroy enemies in war. At what point did this manoeuvre become novel? Who influenced Hannibal? Schwartzkopf didn’t need any influences given the intelligence service had identified for him a wide open flank. It was nothing more than common sense.

3. Blitzkrieg is not represented with Battle of France, and the lack of a doctrine at that point (or at any other point, really) doesn't exclude the concept of blitzkrieg. It may exclude it as a finished doctrine at that particular point in time and space - but that's not the point of this article.

I’m sorry, but this borders on the ridiculous. It is exactly the point. The Germans took a punt on the Ardennes. Most thought it was going to be a disaster. No one knew how much of the Allied forces they trapped. It wasn’t until late in the day it started to dawn on the OKW that they had won a critical manoeuvre victory, and pressed on Dunkirk too late. It was stop start, have we havn’t we operation. After the fact; ‘oh, we did this thing called Blitzkrieg, so say the English’. Then they attempted ‘to do the same thing’ as Halder put it, in Yugoslavia, Greece and the USSR.

There was no concept, until after the fact. Even so the campaigns in the Balkans and Russia, up until 1941, were done without regard for intelligence, logistics and strategy; the core ingredients of doctrine or ‘concept warfare’ to paraphrase.

On a side note: what the Germans did in 1939-1941 was the opposite of strategy. To win quickly so there was no need for long term strategy, no need for logistical planning, no need for intelligence. Only they did need those things, even for a ‘Blitzkrieg’. ‘Blitzkrieg’ is not a strategy, not an operational concept/doctrine. It something that pretends to be those things. It is the opposite of strategy, or what I would call ‘anti-strategy’.

4. The modern understanding of Blitzkrieg has its roots in the German operations from 1939-1944. Whether or not it was a doctrine at that point, or if it is really an incremential {sic} development of another doctrine - or just an old doctrine fought with new weapons (which can't be the case - the Germans didn't have any weapons their enemies didn't have as well) - it is not the crucial point in this article.

To reply to this and your end comments; You have misunderstood the point. Your casual use of the words “roots of” is a mistake. We have both established there were no established roots without established doctrine.

Your opinion relating to an old doctrine fought with new weapons (which can't be the case - the Germans didn't have any weapons their enemies didn't have as well) is not correct. A) it was not a doctrine (you still need to prove this was the case) and B) what is meant by ‘new weapons’ was a new generation of weapons – it does not mean the ‘Germans had weapons the allies didn’t’. It was meant to signify the use of mechanisation and air power. Although they did possess radio – an essential factor the allies lacked in 1940-41.

5. Finally: I have no need to do anything. My perspective is shaped by the heavy-weight academic sources and evidence. This is in sharp contrast to others, yourself included, who insist on using their 'humble opinion'.

Further: Blitzkrieg is controversial. It is core to the subject. You are going to have to deal with this fact. That is why there is such discussion of it.

Still, this discussion becomes moot if you cannot bring sources to the table and turn this into an academic debate, rather than a "this is what I think" complaint. Its that sort of thing that has no place here. Dapi89 (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ad1) you seem obsessed with what the Germans did and didn't have during WW2. In fact it is of little relevance to the article. The article is - or must be - about blitzkrieg as we understand it today. My attempt at an analogy with impressionism still stands. That while Manet may not have used a definite and finished approach, what he and others did is now described as impressionism. The same would go for Blitzkrieg.

ad2) The operations looked more that vaguely similar, and I'm not the only person to draw these parallels. But of course, you can always ascribe any given operation to chance, and you can argue that even though it would be a stated purpose to achieve something by using a certian doctrine, that it happend to follow that doctine was accidental more than deliberate. IIRC, Schwartzkopff himself referred to his operation in Iraq as a "Cannae".

ad3) Try and let go of the Germans. As I say above, just because you use a method that is not described in detail (as a doctrine) it doesn't mean you can't describe it as such (Blitzkrieg, Impressionism) after the fact. Even IF the Germans lied about having a finished doctrine or not, it's not relevant to Blitzkrieg as we understand it. It would only be relevant to whether or not the Germans had a finished doctrine called Blitzkrieg. And this article should not go so far as to state that, just like the Impressionism-article shouldn't refuse to ascribe Monet to Impressionism due to the fact that Impressionism only became a vaguely defined term after Monet had begun the practice.

ad4) So doctrine appear out of the blue? Surely most doctrines have their roots, and by definition roots must appear before the doctrine. Even if Blitzkrieg have never been written down - even today - as a doctrine, whatever level the notion is at, there must have been roots - and to our modern understanding, this began with the German operations in ca. 1940. That it wasn't a doctrine seem to contradict your previous wish that the article should be about Bewegungskrieg i.e. you apparantly feel that the German operations were in fact Bewegungskrieg. I needn't prove anything regarding the existance of a doctrine, because I'm perfectly in line with the lack of a finished doctrine called Blitzkrieg in Germany in the 40's. I'm saying that that fact is quite irrelevant to the article, as the article is about Blitzkrieg, not "the finished and eternal doctrine Blitzkrieg, developed by named Germans from 1932-1939". You seem to be the one stuck in that fact and are unable to move further and actually do any constructive about this article.

ad5)Well, you seem to be quite adamant in keeping this article about something that it shouldn't be about. I appreciate the fact that scolars point out that Blitzkrieg was not a finished doctrine. But that doesn't change the fact that there's a term, notion, crypto-doctrine or popular belief of a doctrine called Blitzkrieg. And this article (I can't stress this enough, it seems) should be about Blitzkrieg as it is percieved today. Not an article of what the Germans didn't have in 1940. I don't pretend to be a scolar or have a lot of sources claiming anything you would ever accept.

ad etc.) In my "humble opinion" Blitzkrieg - as an encyclopaedic article - is not very controversial. It's simply a matter of relaying the current information etc. in a readable fashion. That academics have found that the Germans didn't have a doctrine does not change the aim of the article. It would be relevant to mention - sure - but change the fact that the article should still be about the current perception of Blitzkrieg (since we don't have a doctrine to copy) it does not.

Further, it seem's unproductive to refuse any critisism with "I have sources saying that the Germans didn't have a blitzkrieg doctrine, until you have disproven these sources all emphasis in the article should be based on the fact that the Germans didn't have a Blitzkrieg Doctrine". As stated again and again, the German doctrinal situation is not exhausting the subject of Blitzkrieg, despite your belief that it does. Finally, It's my impression that you are beyond paedagogical reach and I have no illusions that these paragraphs resolves or even moves the subject in a direction that would make this article comprehendable. Good luck. Nwinther over and out.--Nwinther (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Useless self opinion. Most of these comments I have already dealt with before.

A) Find sources that support your assertions

B) Stop attacking the sources (when you criticise the content, its actually the academic sources you're attacking, not me)

C) I'm only going to deal with this one, given that most of the others don't make sense:

ad4) So doctrine appear out of the blue? Surely most doctrines have their roots, and by definition roots must appear before the doctrine. Even if Blitzkrieg have never been written down - even today - as a doctrine, whatever level the notion is at, there must have been roots - and to our modern understanding, this began with the German operations in ca. 1940. That it wasn't a doctrine seem to contradict your previous wish that the article should be about Bewegungskrieg i.e. you apparently feel that the German operations were in fact Bewegungskrieg. I needn't prove anything regarding the existence of a doctrine, because I'm perfectly in line with the lack of a finished doctrine called Blitzkrieg in Germany in the 40's. I'm saying that that fact is quite irrelevant to the article, as the article is about Blitzkrieg, not "the finished and eternal doctrine Blitzkrieg, developed by named Germans from 1932-1939". You seem to be the one stuck in that fact and are unable to move further and actually do any constructive about this article.

I have said, time and time again: there is no doctrine called Blitzkrieg - neither in a complete or 'incomplete' state. So there are no 'roots' to be had. What part of this don't you understand? Why do you insist on implying that there was a partially complete Blitzkrieg doctrine? It appears to me you're not inline with what doctrine means, at all.

Bewegungskrieg has nothing to do with Blitzkrieg and under no circumstances do I think, beyond the extremely vague, that they were similar. The difference, if I have to point it out, is that one was an official operational manoeuvre method which was to help achieve rapid tactical decisions and was not designed as a strategic knockout blow. The other was unplanned, sorted out more by success than by design, that came about as a result of muddling through - May/June 1940 defined - which did aim at trying to achieve a knockout blow. Besides, there was no intent to follow on from the 19th Century Bewegungskrieg, but to start anew: i.e attrition warfare. So Bewegungskrieg did not 'give birth' to Blitzkrieg.

You seem to be the one stuck in that fact and are unable to move further and actually do any constructive about this article.

Well this rather offensive. It is quite obvious; this applies to you, not me. I have given the appropriate (academic) arguments, as an opposed to waffle.

...this article (I can't stress this enough, it seems) should be about Blitzkrieg as it is perceived today. Not an article of what the Germans didn't have in 1940. I don't pretend to be a scholar or have a lot of sources claiming anything you would ever accept

No, it should not be all that this article is about. It should be discussed, as we say here 'warts and all': what it was, what it wasn't, where it came from, if it came from anywhere and why; did it work, what did it do well; where did it fail; what type of forces carries it out; where did armour and air power fit in; possible influences.

If you are not familiar with the scholarship and can't offer sources, why are you here? In fact, don't answer; I have no desire to be repeating myself endlessly. Good day. Dapi89 (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The points raised by Nwinther are valid. There are certainly a case of WP:UNDUE weight on a certain school of historians, especially since it is mentioned that there are still academic historians supporting the blitzkrieg thesis. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:52, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Blitzkrig

[moved from RoslynSKP talk page] I regret that I have once again reverted your extensive edits to the article on Blitzkrieg. You introduced a vast amount of material, giving a blow-by-blow account of a single battle in the Palestine theatre long before "blitzkrieg" became an accepted term or any sort of doctrine. (Allenby's later hagiographers making use of the word to describe his planning is mere revisionism.) This material is therefore irrelevant to blitzkrieg, unless you can prove that Guderian, or von Seeckt or any other theorist or visionary between the wars made use of the lessons provided by Allenby's methods (most of which i.e. the infantry and artillery attacks) were standard British Army doctrine by 1918. The existing one-paragraph summary and link to the article on the battle, with a cite to Liddell Hart's work, is all that is required. Anything more is off-topic and original research. If you keep re-inserting the material, I will make a request for comment by uninvolved editors. HLGallon (talk) 08:23, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

HLGallon, this information will be of interest to anyone reading this article as it describes operations which closely resemble operations which have become known as blitzkrieg actions. This is not hagiography (writings of the lives of saints) nor is it historiography (writing about writing history) but describes plans and operations which actually took place. What wasn't standard British Army doctrine by 1918 was the use of creeping barrages to cover the infantry attack to devistating effect. The cavalry advance which quickly moved to encircle and cut the enemy's main lines of retreat, and lines of communications, without worrying about extended unguarded flanks and the use of aircraft to bomb the lines of retreat and communications hubs. The Amiens battle is important because it was shortly before Megiddo, on the western front and shares with Megiddo similarities with the later blitzkrieg attacks. Its not original research as the information is well referenced from a number of sources. Your summary is too brief, 'sideshow' is POV, Allenby's success was not anachronistic as it took place during the last days of horse transport. Its only later that this claim was made retrospectively. --Rskp (talk) 06:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue seems to be whether or not reliable sources draw a connection between Megiddo and the later developement of blitzkrieg warfare. Whilst the bulk of the prose you have added is indeed referenced to reliable sources the key sentence is not. Is there a reference for this sentence: "Although the British Army's lessons were mainly drawn from the infantry and artillery offensives on the Western Front in late 1918, the Sinai and Palestine Campaign had witnessed operations that involved some aspects of what would later be known as blitzkrieg.[citation needed]."? If not I'm not sure this material really should be included in the article. Anotherclown (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This sentence already existed at 05:53 on 7 May 2012 before I started editing this article. It read - "Although the British Army's lessons were mainly drawn from the infantry and artillery offensives on the Western Front in late 1918, one "sideshow" theatre had witnessed operations that involved some aspects of what would later become blitzkrieg." The information I added was relevant to this idea. The following sentences which also existed before my work on this article - "General Edmund Allenby had used cavalry to seize railway and communication centers deep in the enemy rear during the Battle of Megiddo in September 1918, while aircraft disrupted enemy lines of communication and headquarters. These methods had induced "strategic paralysis" among the defending Ottoman troops and led to their rapid and complete collapse." were in need of citations and explanation. --Rskp (talk) 08:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that but the issue remains, in my opinion we need reliable sources which explicitly support the connection between blitzkreig and Megiddo if this information is going to remain in the article. Happy to see what other editors think about this though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

To take the points in turn: "an intense and creeping artillery barrage to support and cover the front line infantry in their attack on the Ottoman front line." Nothing to do with blitzkrieg. This describes every infantry attack on the Western Front since Arras, in early 1917. (Creeping barrages, by the way, were standard British Army doctrine by late 1917, if not earlier, and French doctrine by late 1916.) "...destroying or dominating German aircraft to avoid the possibility of aerial reconnaissances discovering the weak sections of the front line and the cavalry advance" A long-winded way of saying "Air superiority". holding the captured territory by a cavalry corps and two infantry corps, dependent on rations more than 50 miles (80 km) from their base." The numbers involved in the battle are nothing to do with blitzkrieg. And so on. The entire section on Amiens should go. "... the initial attack was by infantry divisions deployed two brigades abreast, with a third in reserve." Infantry formations for a particular operation are nothing to do with blitzkrieg. The artillery tasking likewise, the numbers of casualties at Amiens and Megiddo especially so. To summarise, surprise infantry assault, with tactical objectives only, is *not* blitzkrieg. The overuse of the term by later works to cover earlier events is in many cases stale cliché rather than proper analysis. HLGallon (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed - I have posted a request for other users opinions on the MILHIST talk page. Anotherclown (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Have re edited in response to HLGallon's suggestions, except for Amiens. Erickson seemed to think the two battles were similar on the tactical level and if Megiddo could be a precursor to blitzkrieg, so might it. --Rskp (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

At this point the sentence linking Megiddo and blitzkreig is still unreferenced, so the issue remains as far as I can see. Anotherclown (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

That sentence was in the article before I began editing it. --Rskp (talk) 06:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes you have already said that, but its irrelevant - it still needs a citation. The inclusion of any of the material on Megiddo can only be sustained if there are reliable sources which support the link between it and the subsequent development of Blitzkrieg warfare. Currently they have not been provided and without them this seems like original research (regardless of who included it, or who added to it, or when). Pls provide the requested citation or remove the infomation per WP:PROVEIT. Anotherclown (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• • Done. --Rskp (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

As an aside, and separate from the Megiddo blitzkrieg question, the section of the article as it stands at present seems to be trying to prove a point about Megiddo being a more important and more successful battle than Amiens; the paragraph listing the comparative distance of advance and prisoners captured seems to be the case in point. Describing Amiens after Megiddo, when Amiens is the earlier battle, seems counter-intuitive and confusing, and the comparison in general seems a tendentious comparison of apples and oranges.

It also strikes me that the operational details about Megiddo and Amiens are irrelevant, as articles exist on both where this information can happily sit. The emphasis should be laid on what impact the battles had on doctrinal development, not on what happened on the ground. -- IxK85 (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• The operational details are included to show how blitzkrieg-like Megiddo was. The source concentrated on the fighting at Megiddo with Amiens added. As that's all that this source provided, why not leave it there for an editor who knows more about Amiens to improve upon? --Rskp (talk) 03:37, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I had hoped for more contributors, but nevertheless, there is a concensus. All the blow-by-blow details unnecessarily bloat and distort the article and are original research as defined in WP:SYN, as they are not linked to any work which describes the development or definition of blitzkrieg, merely to works which largely recount unit histories in the Palestine campaign. They will be removed within a few hours unless there are objections by someone other than User:RoslynSKP. HLGallon (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

• • HLGallon's argument for deleting all the Megiddo information ignores the fact that Woodward specifically states key elements in "blitzkreig warfare" were present at Megiddo, including concentration, surprise and speed. It is not original research to quote a secondary source like Woodward. There is no consensus; none has been called for and none reached. The truncated current version is a misleading oversimplification of the Battle of Megiddo. HLGallon cannot deny an editor the right to improve this important section of the article. --Rskp (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Tooze 2002

There is only a Tooze 2006 mentioned. --Alex1011 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Innuendo-like language?

Am I the only person who sees a problem with the language in the opening paragraph? To quote it "forces a breakthrough into the enemy's rear through a series of deep thrusts." Can someone please tame the innuendo, intended or not? I don't think it must be described using this exact verbiage. Twunchy (talk) 06:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? This is not a forum and trolling is not welcomed (jokes). On a serious note, those terms, according to the editor's edit summary, are the recurring terms used in describing the Blitzkrieg in the cited works. "Breakthrough", "deep thrusts", "dislocate", and so on. Personally, I've noticed those terms are commonly repeated in documentaries, article, etc, when describing the Blitzkrieg, and are somewhat standard Blitzkrieg terms. Judging from the edit summaries, the opening paragraph gives a faithful representation of the description provided in the cited works. I see no justification in altering them. Besides, if you look hard enough you can sniff out innuendo in any lengthy Wikipedia article. StoryEpic (talk) 09:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Failures of Blitzkrieg

Maybe add a section on why blitzkrieg failed. Lightning warfare failed because of the large territory. If they reformed their army or conjoined all units on certain positions then it would not have failed. Blitzkrieg was not made for mass invasions. Not Guderian nor Rommel's desert warfare would have been useful. One would need blitzkrieg only to gain an advantage, but if you used the russians mass invasion theory or the americans timing it would have worked. The Sherman m4 was highly degraded and ridiculed after the war, however the m4 showed performance or speed where the tiger did not. The Germans also lacked precision warfare as well as mass assault or mass invasion theory ala operation uranus, one example is the failure to create their own pearl harbor on the russian coastal fleet at the time, deciding to lay down mines instead (the russian fleet though was never a real threat, hence it will not be attacked..maybe it will be in ww3 because like napoleon and the brits before it, naval powers are regarded highly in rough waters, i could imagine this country has potential to be the greatest naval power in the world actually, give or take its inexperience, come november 2013 this may become reality hence countries with long coastlines would probably excel in this field via terrain albeit it all depends on how to destroy a fleet which sadly it never got a title of world naval power as of yet). Naturally older civilizations would do so, yet numbers doesn't always win as proof with hitler's mistake to invade russia late, japan's game of gongyo spoiled in the pacific raid where they missed key targets and the mistake of not taking moscow first or not using the mass invasion theory. The Russians had training for these upcoming events alright, about 100 years or so of military build up via the soviet union. The Blitzkrieg tactic can happen on land sea or air and never really failed actually because it is not long range attack. Its more like short range cover, but could be covered by long range nowadays with high-tech equip. Their naval fleet is def a sleeping giant and something to consider in future events in naval warfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvdc1980 (talk • contribs) 16:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)