NOTE: Becuase I agree on AoAs "No-More-Iraq-Threads" I want to point out that this IS NO Iraq thread.
I just quote the actual war as another example where Blitz-war wasn't succesful.


Now that it's clear that the Iraq War won't be a Blitzkrieg (Blitz-war) too, I'm wondering if there had been any succesfull Blitzwars anyway besides Germany's early-ww2 Blitzkriege.


All other wars I remember weren't that "fast" like Germany's occupations of the nearby nations at the start of WW2.
And you have to say that Germany surely wasn't more technically superior to France than the US was it in Vietnam or is it now In Iraq.

What do you think?
Or do you have examples where Blitzkrieg was succesfull?
Or do you have a clue why it isn't possible anymore?

I would try to make two precisions :

1) The blitzkrieg in France crushed the French army in one month. We are still in the first week of the war in Iraq for now.

2) Hitler did not care about civilian casualties. This help when you're in hurry...

Hmm...The Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the 100 hour ground defeat of the Iraqi Army in 1991, arguably some Indian operations against Pakistan at various stages, and many other modern day equivalents obviously do not rate a mention. Tsk.

What about the 6-days war?

Originally posted by Akka
I would try to make two precisions :

1) The blitzkrieg in France crushed the French army in one month. We are still in the first week of the war in Iraq for now.

2) Hitler did not care about civilian casualties. This help when you're in hurry...

Excellent points.

Also, Terrain and objective come into play as well. That is why Vietnam is a poor example to use. Jungle and pacification as opposed to conquest.

3) Hitle also wasn't nearly as concerned about his own casualties. Not that he didn't care, but I doubt he would blanch at 15 killed in one day. Given the real-estate taken, he would likely have been estatic.

Originally posted by Eli
What about the 6-days war?

That never happened; just evil Zionist propaganda. ;)


A very, very salient addition; certainly right up there with parts of 1956, 1973, and the Great Deciding War of 2006 as true models of lightning armoured war.

Originally posted by knowltok2
3) Hitle also wasn't nearly as concerned about his own casualties. Not that he didn't care, but I doubt he would blanch at 15 killed in one day. Given the real-estate taken, he would likely have been estatic.
Strictly military speaking, ANY commander would be ecstatic as the result of both Gulf War.

Casualties are 1 vs 50 or 100 for God's sake !

German invasion of Denmark?

I think 9000+ casualties, for the 1939 German attack in Poland, does not make it a big sucess in my book...9000 men massacred!

Not to mention the 200,000+ Poles! :eek:

Originally posted by Akka
I would try to make two precisions :

1) The blitzkrieg in France crushed the French army in one month. We are still in the first week of the war in Iraq for now.

2) Hitler did not care about civilian casualties. This help when you're in hurry...

Uuuh.. Well.. .The civilian casualties in Germany's France attacks weren't high.

To be precise: The many civilian casualties in WW2 were later in the war for 2 reasons:
First: No food anymore
Second: The gigantic-city-bombardments that were made by all sides.

At the start of ww2 it was "nerly humanic" if it's possible to use this word in context to "war"

BTW:

"Blitzkrieg" means fast success by using combined weapons.
(e.g. First Air-strike-then tanks-then Inf, and this all in a couple of hours.)

The war the Israelis made was just pure luck and an excelent tactics. But it wasn't a Blitzkrieg in context, even if it was really a short war.

Originally posted by pi8ch
Uuuh.. Well.. .The civilian casualties in Germany's France attacks weren't high.
Higher than you think.
Still, not "that high" for the standards of the times.
But NOWHERE AS NEAR as the ones we actually saw.
By a 50 to 100 multiplier.
At the start of ww2 it was "nerly humanic" if it's possible to use this word in context to "war"
Again : for the standards of the time.

BTW:

If I mean "the many causalities" I mean the millions of people that died in ww2.

Of course every sigle death is a unneccesarry tragedy! But I compared the startings with the endings...

And out of millitary sight the occupation the Germans made had been very effectice. They gained much without "wasting" much "militaric material"

Higher than you think.
Still, not "that high" for the standards of the times.
But NOWHERE AS NEAR as the ones we actually saw.
By a 50 to 100 multiplier.

It would be horrible indeed if we would made the same mistakes again and again... But don't we do so?

BTW: I hope that the modern far-more precise weaponry is also a reason why there are less civil causalities.

Shouldn't this be in the history forum? It's not like that forum is overflowing in threads.

Shouldn't this be in the history forum? It's not like that forum is overflowing in threads.
hmm.. that's true indeed... I didn't thougth of that...

A moderator could move this of course!

Originally posted by pi8ch
[i]

Now that it's clear that the Iraq War won't be a Blitzkrieg (Blitz-war) too,



How is crossing 300 miles of enemy territory and threatening their capital in a less than a week not lightening war?

A moderator could move this of course! A moderator could move a mountain...provided it was in the wrong forum.
How is crossing 300 miles of enemy territory and threatening their capital in a less than a week not lightening war?
Was lighting used at all in this advance?

Originally posted by MrPresident
A moderator could move a mountain...provided it was in the wrong forum.

Was lighting used at all in this advance?

Well, there were the storms B-)

Originally posted by EzInKy


Well, there were the storms B-)
So, the storms that block the american troops in the desert make them doing a lightning advance ? :D

Originally posted by pi8ch
BTW:

"Blitzkrieg" means fast success by using combined weapons.
(e.g. First Air-strike-then tanks-then Inf, and this all in a couple of hours.)

The war the Israelis made was just pure luck and an excelent tactics. But it wasn't a Blitzkrieg in context, even if it was really a short war.

A blitzkrieg is a lightning war, meaning it's very fast and it uses it's speed in order to crush the enemy. I don't see where does it say it has to combine all sorts of units. Also, in every war a western country was involved in since WW2, including the 6 days war, there was a use of combined forces. The Germans didn't use it more than it is used today, they were just the first to use such a combination.

Originally posted by pi8ch
The war the Israelis made was just pure luck and an excelent tactics. But it wasn't a Blitzkrieg in context, even if it was really a short war.

Brilliant tactics are not a result of luck. Luck is not a result of brilliant tactics. The two are mutually exclusive.
Also, you must remember lighting wars are very relative to the ammount of territory and resistance you encounter. When fighting an enemy that you severly outgun and outman, advancing at anything less than maximum speed is a failure. The Iraq conflict in this manner is going as planned - it wasn't a speedy lighting war, it was planned from the beggining to be an extremely fast dash because both mechanization and little resistance allow for it. Also, one can hardly say the Iraqis were not prepared.
One of the key elements for a succesful blietzkrieg is the element of surprise. When you hit your enemy fast, hard and out of nowhere, you're fighting a blietzkrieg. A war can drag on for 45 days and still be considered a lighting war under the assumption your progress (at least initially) was fast, your enemy was surprised but still puts up a fight. A war which is won in 6 days will not necessarily be considered a blietzkrieg if both sides expect it to happen and the fierce fighting burns itself out in little time.

Blietzkrieg refers to the tactic, not the ammount of time elapsed. It refers to striking as fast and as hard at possibly at a time your enemy least expects it - when Germany invaded Poland, the British automatically declared war. The French gave weak support to the British before Hitler turned his eyes west. While both sides expected a war, the invasion of France IS considered a blietzkrieg because of the surprise of attacking through the Ardennes, skirting the Maginot line. The invasion of Russia is a blietzkrieg on the account of Riventrop-Molotov. The 6 day war in Israel can hardly be considered a blietzkrieg, since the only surprise was who attacked first, not that it happened.

Originally posted by Akka

So, the storms that block the american troops in the desert make them doing a lightning advance ? :D

Yep those storms, most likely Iraqi secret weapons aimed at impeding coalition progress B-)

A lot of ground has been covered in a very short time with very few casualties reported for the coalition side and their forces are now threatening the heart of the enemy itself after bypassing pockets of resistence, similar to Germany's going around the Maginot line.

Originally posted by EzInKy
Yep those storms, most likely Iraqi secret weapons aimed at impeding coalition progress B-) I thought they were acts of God proving that God is on the Iraqi side and will deliver them victory, just like Sadda Hussein said :crazyeye:

I thought they were acts of God proving that God is on the Iraqi side and will deliver them victory, just like Sadda Hussein said
They are acts of Allah not God. God is too busy blessing America to bother with some storms in the Iraqi desert.
It refers to striking as fast and as hard at possibly at a time your enemy least expects it
Yeah, six months into a war is the time the enemy least suspects you are going to attack.

Originally posted by MrPresident

They are acts of Allah not God. God is too busy blessing America to bother with some storms in the Iraqi desert.


Good one. ;) If I catch any more collateral blessings, I may just ascend to heaven on a shaft of light. :p

History topic....moved.

No 20th century Blitz war worked, Germany didn't knock all of France out, and certainly failed to take out Britain.
Germany also lost 500,000 casualties in the attack on the west begining on May 10, 1940, hardly economical.
At least 100,000 civilians were casualties in these attacks, but accurate nymbers are impossible to obtain.

In Russia, the German loss rate is similar, even though Russia's was much higher.

Also, the Allies and Russians did their own "Blitzing" in the 1943-45 period, Germany had great trouble stopping them (mainly thanks to Hitler's rediculous stand fast orders.)

Gulf war I was a sucessful Blitz war, and the current war is shaping up as the most lop-sided war in human history, so far coalition forces have suffered 14 combat deaths vs at least 5,000 Iraqi combat losses, and that estimate is on the conservative side.

Originally posted by MrPresident

They are acts of Allah not God. God is too busy blessing America to bother with some storms in the Iraqi desert. Ohh... well that is great news, because our God can kick their Allah's ass! :jesus:

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
No 20th century Blitz war worked, Germany didn't knock all of France out,
Huh?
AFAIK they did.
Are you refering to the Vichy southern part of France? If yes, it is my opinion that installing a 'friendly goverment' may be considered as knocking out.

If not refering to Vichy, what info do I miss?

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae


Gulf war I was a sucessful Blitz war, and the current war is shaping up as the most lop-sided war in human history, so far coalition forces have suffered 14 combat deaths vs at least 5,000 Iraqi combat losses, and that estimate is on the conservative side.

CNN Iraq Casualties Site (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/index.html) reports 47 total Coalition deaths (with names and photographs) as of March 25th. I can't find any information on the number wounded, but it's surely in the hundreds, considering the number of deaths. I don't know if this site is kept up to date (so it may infact be a current total).

I agree that this is a very lopsided conflict. The ratio of deaths is looking like 100:1 in favor of the Coalition. Ten times better than in Vietnam.

A blitzkrieg is a lightning war, meaning it's very fast and it uses it's speed in order to crush the enemy. I don't see where does it say it has to combine all sorts of units. Also, in every war a western country was involved in since WW2, including the 6 days war, there was a use of combined forces. The Germans didn't use it more than it is used today, they were just the first to use such a combination.

You don't see it? No problem: That's something we can solve:
The German word "Blitz" is the word for a flash / a lightning, but it is also simply a word for "fast". In the context of "Blitzkrieg" it only means "Fast war / no stop".

"Blitzkrieg" itself means that a pre-defined pattern of assault with the use of combined armes leads to a fast - nonstoppable forth-comming.
It also means that there is "no real front" with the meaning of trenches and fortefeited units and such things. (Logic - there is no static front if the assaulter goes forward all the time)

So the 6 days war wasn't that. Firstly: It was perectly made (Really, there the Israeli Generals did a great job) but not pre-defined in long terms. It was more a "counter-suprise".

Then it wasn't a perfectly using of combined arms, e.g. the Air Force made a "hazardous" run alone! The made it, and they made it good, but it was no combined attack...

Originally posted by EzInKy


How is crossing 300 miles of enemy territory and threatening their capital in a less than a week not lightening war?

They say you went through a desert to avoid fighting ;)


In a week my car would have gone thousands of miles and threatened their capital (ahem) :p

Exactly, they were the first to pioneer that strategy, it included combined arms because they used combined arms and its named after their strategy. Jeez, that was a mouthful, sorry i havnt slept recently. :)

I agree that this is a very lopsided conflict. The ratio of deaths is looking like 10:1 in favor of the Coalition. About the same as Vietnam estimates.

if the estimates of the attacks on those Iraqi columns are anywhere close to correct you looking at more like 30-1 or 40-1 and that being conservative.

Originally posted by Kentonio


if the estimates of the attacks on those Iraqi columns are anywhere close to correct you looking at more like 30-1 or 40-1 and that being conservative.

Could you post a link to your source? I've done some searching and can't find anybody in a reliable position making a simple estimate of Iraqi casualties to date.

Also, my math was wrong by a power. So you might mean 300-1 or 400-1.

Blitzkrieg is just Goebbels' propaganda term that summarized the successful infantry tactics developed at the end of ww1 and used to great success in ww2 by the germans.

Most of the important fighting that the germans did didn't come from the tanks or the airplanes but from the optimization of units at the squad level centered around the machine gun to put out as much firepower as possible.

Originally posted by pi8ch
BTW:

"Blitzkrieg" means fast success by using combined weapons.
(e.g. First Air-strike-then tanks-then Inf, and this all in a couple of hours.)

The war the Israelis made was just pure luck and an excelent tactics. But it wasn't a Blitzkrieg in context, even if it was really a short war.

What are you talking about? Those are exactly the tactics which the Israelis used in 1956, 1967 and, with less sucess, in 1973 and 1982.

Originally posted by Greadius
Ohh... well that is great news, because our God can kick their Allah's ass! :jesus:

Um, the Christian 'God' and the Muslim 'Allah' is the exact same man[/woman] ;)

I suppose it's politically unpopular to include Iraq's defeat of Kuwait before the US involvement in 1991 as a successful blitzkrieg? That particular invasion was a done deal by the time it made it into the western news media at all - accomplished in a single day, 02 August 1990, if I remember correctly, but it's possible there were some preliminaries that just didn't make it into our news.

Yeah, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a text book blitzkrieg - armoured columns drove across the border while elite troops made amphbious landings along the coast, and the Kuwatis hardly put up a fight.

It's a shame that the US government didn't consider this example before it decided that the Iraqi army would either kamakazi or surrender en-masse to invading forces...

When you hit your enemy fast, hard and out of nowhere, you're fighting a blietzkrieg.
Thats not exactly ture. The word "Blitz" in context with war got much misused in English.

But "Blitzkrieg"'s origin comes from that what Germany did:
Bombing down, attacking with Stukas (Ground Attack Planes), accomplished with fighters to provied superiority in Air. Not to forget the Artillerey.. Then with Tanks slashing to the already scattered enemy lines, taking out the last possible forifited defendings. This is accomplisehd by infantry and pioneers. And thee whole thing keeps more or less running.

It is a occupation war where you try to keep the advantage of the first strike by simply stopping the enemy to reorganize.

And the iraq is good organized in its defendings. Of course thats becuase they didn'T had a singkle front, they knew that they couldn't hold against the Allies in a conventional front.

France did, and thats why a Blitzkrieg there was even possible.


They are acts of Allah not God. God is too busy blessing America to bother with some storms in the Iraqi desert.
All three main Monotheistic religion (Jews, Christians, Muslims) have the same god as described in The Old Testament which is a part of all three Religions. Abraham is a father of all three religions...

So I presume if we start to belive in god we should be aware that - if "he" exists - that "he" will be the same in ALL religions. That what we call religion is just the human interpretation. So God is propably loughing his head off when he sees how we are hitting each ohter becuase of interpretation disagreements.

Yeah, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was a text book blitzkrieg - armoured columns drove across the border while elite troops made amphbious landings along the coast, and the Kuwatis hardly put up a fight.

Thats somehow true, I agree!!

Go on, I wanna hear more Blitzkrieg examples.

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae

No 20th century Blitz war worked, Germany didn't knock all of France out, and certainly failed to take out Britain.
Germany also lost 500,000 casualties in the attack on the west begining on May 10, 1940, hardly economical.
At least 100,000 civilians were casualties in these attacks, but accurate nymbers are impossible to obtain.



Are we talking about the French 1940 campaign, Fall Gelb? The Germans did knock France out of the war, in a very short time, considering the fact that the French and BEF did have more tanks then the Germans, and the fact that the French army was one of the strongest of those day's. The Germans occupied most of its territory also, you don't call that a knock out? The number of casualties you mention are also far from their actual mark. Are you sure you aren't confused with the German 1914 campaign?

On topic about the war in Iraq: offcourse it is a blitz. Coalition forces are moving very fast through Iraq, moving to their strategic objectives, with the use of combined forces, bypassing points of heavy resistance. Seems like a skillfully done blitz to me. The problems will start if the coalition forces actually have to clear those Iraqi strongpoints. The odds will be more even then, that means: more losses.

BTW: In contradiction to popular believes, the jerries didn't invite blitz tactics. The russians did that in Mongolia; as Simon allready said earlier.

But "Blitzkrieg"'s origin comes from that what Germany did:
Bombing down, attacking with Stukas (Ground Attack Planes), accomplished with fighters to provied superiority in Air. Not to forget the Artillerey.. Then with Tanks slashing to the already scattered enemy lines, taking out the last possible forifited defendings. This is accomplisehd by infantry and pioneers. And thee whole thing keeps more or less running.

Which is exactly what Israel did in 1967.

Originally posted by CurtSibling
German invasion of Denmark?

Yes, that was pretty quick. The gov't capitulated after only 5 hours and 5 minutes. By the end of the day (April 9, 1940) the Germans controlled the entire country of Denmark.

Made France look heroic!

Since a number of you are confused, thousands of French continued the fight, calling themselves Free french.
"Blitzkreig" could not cross the channel nor force all of the French colonies to submit.

Also, Vichy forces flipped the first opprotunity they had, in North Africa, France was never defeated in WW II.

Also, some of you do not understand Blitzkrieg tactics.

To explain simply, the idea is to mass at a point of attack vs weak opposition, soften this point with airpower and/or artillery, and create a breakthrough.
Under no circumstances are the mobile elements to engage the enemy, this is to be cleared by follow up infantry.

The spearhead is to head directly for the command/control elements of the enemy, first on the front (tactical) followed by the enemy's overall command (strategic) which is usually the enemy's capital.

The objective is to cut off the head, and the body dies.

To agree with AoA; all Germany achieved in the various Blitzkrieg campaigns was temporary tactical success, however spectactular it proved. Presented with the strategic obstacles of great operational distance (Russia), amphibious obstacles (English channel) or extended supply lines (Russia and North Africa) the system was incapable of obtaining a decision - not that I'm complaining about that.

There seems to be a degree of "argument by definition" going on here. If one defines Blitzkrieg as "the way the Germans fought in 1939-1941, no exceptions" then sure, they fought the only blitzkriegs! But if one adopts a more flexible definition, along the lines of AoAs - although I would substitute his statement regarding concentration on enemy command/control for a more general definition, viz:

Concentration of effort at a point of attack to obtain a break through the enemy position OR manoeuvre to flanks to obtain a breakthrough of comparable magnitude;

Exploitation of breakthrough by combined forces groups with independence of action.

Those breakthrough elements disabling enemy response by speed of operation (within the enemy decision cycle, in more modern parlance) AND by operations against critical enemy rear area targets (including political and military C3 assets, but also against supply and similar objectives0.

At a STRATEGIC level the number of successful "blitzkriegs" is very small. This is because blitzkrieg does not address the question of what to do with the numerous bypassed/surrounded/ignored enemy formations, nor does it inflict crippling casualties automatically. One must either destroy or capture the enemy, or have them escape to fight another day. Even captiulation of the enemy following such a lightning war might not be sufficient; Prussia was conquered in such a fashion by Napoleon, yet never really accepted the result. It's almost as if psychologically a nation regards a blitzkrieg result as a "cheat", not a fair fight.

OPERATIONALLY, I would suggest the following WW2 examples for combined arms/blitzkrieg successes, in addition to the examples already noted:
Western Desert, 1940 (Wavell & O'Connor vs the Italians)
Malaysia 1941-2 (and perhaps Burma also) - the relative lack of Japanese armour does not diminish their achievements in my eyes
Cobra and the breakout from Normandy 1944

Also, I would consider the 1806 Prussian campaign and Gorlice-tarnow campaign of 1915 as examples of these kinds of campaigns; as was noted, it's not a question of the equipment, it's an attitude of mind really.

MadScot

Very interesting post!


To explain simply, the idea is to mass at a point of attack vs weak opposition, soften this point with airpower and/or artillery, and create a breakthrough.
Under no circumstances are the mobile elements to engage the enemy, this is to be cleared by follow up infantry.

The spearhead is to head directly for the command/control elements of the enemy, first on the front (tactical) followed by the enemy's overall command (strategic) which is usually the enemy's capital.

The objective is to cut off the head, and the body dies.
That's the USA tactics, not the German's.

But I agree that this tactics would have he right to be called "Blitzkrieg".

MadScot already pointed t out.. If we are searching for the general definition this one would fit too.


The Germans used their ground troops in Blitzkrieg too. The German tanks became the symbol of their Blitz not without reason, because they rushed trhough only shortly ofter the Air/artillery strike was over.

Teh version AoA describes, that the ground troops are moving in later, that's what the US made in Gulf War II / Iraq War I and what they are trying to now too.

The US only wants to controll the important places to break the regime, but Germany wanted to occupy and hold the whole country to use it for their own. And therefore they need the Groundtroops moving in too.

I think it's premature to speculate how the current war in Iraq is going to turn out.

As for the topic, " Germany still the only country with successful Blitz-Wars?",
I can point out that Germany LOST the war. ;)

Yeah.. but Germany's blitz wars at the start were a success...

That Germyn lost the war was invetable, but has nothing to do with the early Blitzwars.

BTW. At the start of the war Hitler had more good generals, but during the war they got fewer and fewer, and Hitler ordered more and more alone.... I think that's reason enough... A Private as upper-most Military leader.. that can't work... ;)

BTW. Even if Hiterl would have won the war... sooner or later the regime had collapsed becasue all the intelligent people were either in the Conzentration Camps or moved into the US....

France had never stopped as long Germany occupied it's main cities...
Norway had never stopped to mkae resistance...


Then Germy could have only win if:

a) UK gets occupied and the US stops war and makes peace with Germany, or b) UK and Germany make peace before that...

c) Germy didn'T attack Sovjets or d) won against the Sovjiets.

a) and d) Then would be the problem to controll all the occupied areas! Germany didn't has enough people to do so!

b) Sooner or later it would crash again... Germny couldn't riks to have a potential foe over the channel.

c) Germy would be the only remeianing thread for Stalin... Sooner or later they have to crash...


You see.. The whole idea of Germany controlling the plantet after ww2 is so hypothetical and very unlikely.

The only thing that propably would have gone is:
1) Hitler lets his Generals to do the militaric things
2) No war with UK and US
3) The Russia-war is a succes because of good Germ tactics

That would mean that the Axis would have controlled all Europe besides UK and a few Neutrals, but not the whole mediterrane (UK holds a lot there) and Western Russia...

But I don't thionk they would ahve been able to hold this for long...

Big occupation never worked in histroy.

AofA is IMHO correct.

Classic Blitkreig is to punch holes in the front with armour and ignore strongholds and cities, you split up the enemy into dipparte units that cannot support each other these are left to the supporting infantry. E.G. They ignored the Maginot line and the latter hedgehogs of anti-tank guns the French set up. they just went round them. In Russia in 1941 they just ignored the huge numbers of Russian Infantry initially confident that the supporting infantry could deal with them.

That is why Israels victories were not pure blitkreig as they were not concerned with a thrust to disable communications ans split teh enemy. They went out to destroy it form the start. Now it was quick, but there is a difference between quick wars and blitzkreig

Ironically it appears as though the Jews of Israel were the only other successful ones after Hitler :lol:

Originally posted by Sobieski II
Ironically it appears as though the Jews of Israel were the only other successful ones after Hitler :lol:

It is very sad and somehow sick to say, but:

For the Jews who didn't die becuase of the Nazis, the Holocaust brought them much.

Nobody knows if they would have gained israel in this way without the Holocaust.

And it's sure that they never had the role of the victims they have now (more or less i nthe meantime)

That's a very hard topic to discuss, simply becuase the idea of the holocaust is so sick that speaking of advantages becuase of it sounds a bit strange.

I can only quorte a Jew i know (still living in Austria) "So sad it is, but the Holocaust was the only way for the Jews to be fully acceptated in the Western world"

That's maybe true indeed, becuase before the holocaust the jews were not fully acceptaded in any European or Asian countires. But if I were a Jew I don't think I would choose "pro Holocaust" if i had the choise....

As i said: This is not a funny topic to discuss, and I hope i didn't offend aynbody.

I don't think you did offend anyone, because it is an irony that is really quite apparent, and it is not anti-semitic to point it out.

To bad Israel has so many problems with its neighbours these days. It has the human capacity to do amazing things, but so much effort has to be put into self-defence.

Germany's 1940 blitzkrieg defied anything imaginable during its time, hell, it even defied the imagination of it's own strategists who never dreamed that France would be knocked out so easily.

German casualties were not 500,000, in fact exact losses were 163,213 casualties including 29,640 dead.

Compared to french casualties of 90,000 dead, 200,000 wounded and 1.9 million prisoners that's nothing.

Wiping out the largest army in continental europe? priceless.

Well everybody thought that France has the mighties Army, in Fact Germanies was much stonger.

At least the Luftwaffe Germany had at the start of war was stronger as everything France, Uk and US had togehter.

You don'T have to forget that Germyn onyl had new tanks, plaens, equippment etc, while France had many old things out of ww1.

Originally posted by pi8ch
Well everybody thought that France has the mighties Army, in Fact Germanies was much stonger.

At least the Luftwaffe Germany had at the start of war was stronger as everything France, Uk and US had togehter.

You don'T have to forget that Germyn onyl had new tanks, plaens, equippment etc, while France had many old things out of ww1.
That's a common error many people do.

France alone had more planes and tanks than Germany when the war started, and they were newer, more modern and more powerful.
UK had also better tanks and planes than Germany.

Germany had only the advantage in manpower and, above all, tactics and strategy.

I think I've learned that the German Luftwaffe outnumbered all others...

i will research that!

I think you should pi8ch. As far as I know the only supremecy the Germans had in France was in will to fight and tactics. I think the Russians used Blitzkreig on the Eastern front and in Manchuria and so did the Americans in '91. It was used by the Germans on the Western front in France in 1918 where it was born.

Originally posted by Akka

That's a common error many people do.

France alone had more planes and tanks than Germany when the war started, and they were newer, more modern and more powerful.
UK had also better tanks and planes than Germany.

Germany had only the advantage in manpower and, above all, tactics and strategy.

Ummm...nope, none of this is actually true

On the ground

France had 104 divisions, 10,700 guns and 3,063 tanks facing the Germans. The UK added about 10% of this.

Germany had 141 divisions, 7,378 guns and 2,445 tanks. French tanks were actually "better" but Germany's radio technology and tank visibility was much better which pretty much offset whatever design problems their tanks had.

As for aircraft, France and Britain were hopelessly outnumbered and outclassed. France had 1,368 aicraft, britain 456 (in france) vs Germany's 4,020 avaliable.

As for quality, German aircraft was tremendously superior. I dare you to name just 1 french fighter which could match the Bf 109.

As I saied..

I also think that raguil_79 isright here...

Well, pi8ch is quite correct - The Holocaust was a major "push" towards a Jewish state. The Jewish refugees of WW2, with the media focused on them trying to illegally harbor to Israel with the British forces pulling them back to camps in Cyprus or just France/Germany, phenomenally increased world opinion in favor of a Jewish state in the British mandate.

But, even though the Holocaust "helped" Zionism accomplish it's goal, some say Zionism failed because the Holocaust took place.

But that is off topic.

What we can say abotu that i generall is that is was an unbelivable thing.

If we wouldn know it took place I would'nt belive anyone who would told me so...

Would people consider the post Normandybreak-out by the allies a blitz?