"First True Blitzkrieg?" Topic

Which German campaign of WWII marks the first true use of blitzkrieg techniques?

the Polish campaign?
the Norwegian campaign?
France 1940?

Define 'blitzkrieg' techniques, please.

Genghis Khan's first campaign in China?

See Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitzkrieg

Poland

Poland

Ask the Poles what they think…

Austria?

Using the Wike definition, I would say France. The Germans were a lot more conservative in Poland than they were in France, you don't see the panzer divisions running amok in the enemy's deep rear, like Guderian or Rommel in France.

When you're attacking your out-numbered enemy from 3 directions, with the Soviets expected to attack from the fourth, you don't need a lot of deep-penetration operations.

Traditionally Poland is regarded as a normal Prussian/German encirclement battle (Kesselschlacht), not vastly different to e.g. Koeniggratz.

The first (and arguably only) example of what became called 'Blitzkrieg', was the 1940 French Campaign. It was essentially a moral rather than a physical victory, made possible by the good weather and France's well developed road network, along with Guderians brave decision to fly off into the blue. It is extremely hard to recreate in wargames, another indication it was a one off.

This type of attack never succeeded again, although the Germans tried.

Bryan Perretts only decent book 'A Brief History of Blitzkrieg', argues this point very succinctly.

It might be possible to argue that the Six Day War could be considered a 'Blitzkreig', but the enemy states weren't utterly overthrown.

The advance from the Meuse river in Belgium and France, as Martin and Mserafin said.
Almost the entire Panzerwaffe and support for this type of warfare was concentrated in a narrow fast advance to cross the Meuse and drive to the Channel, cutting off the Allied armies.
It was a one off in May 1940.

Poland then France and the Low countries then the Balkans and then the Soviet Union where it worked for a bit then ground to a halt and was finally defeated at Kursk???

Spain

As Martin said, France is the one and only Armoured blitzkreig, but even it used encirclement as a purpose and aim of the blitzkreig

napoleon's treatment of Prussia in 1806 could be described as having the same post battle technique afer Jena and napoleon used cavalry.

Encirclement or not has nothing to do with it. The key element, as the name "blitzkreig" implies, was speed. Namely, the ability to maneuver so quickly (not the same as tactical speed) that the enemy can't react in time to counter your moves. Attacks on enemy communications, HQs, and other rear echelons are part of the technique.

Austria and Czechoslovakia – the most perfect form; the others all involved actual fighting.

France

Operation Michel, the 1918 German offensive?

In WWII the French campaign, for the reasons stated above.

"Encirclement or not has nothing to do with it."

What was the aim of the blitzkreig in France if not to encircle the Allied armies in the low countries?

"Namely, the ability to maneuver so quickly (not the same as tactical speed) that the enemy can't react in time to counter your moves."

It was not about stopping a reaction, it was about forcing situations where reactions were in the wrong place to an outdated situation. The french reacted by stabilising a corridor covering Paris when Paris was never the intended target and moving forces from the North to cover what they though was a salient, but was actually a corridor.

In 44 in the bulge which is the only situation in the west where the germans tried the same methodology, The US knew they had to create bastions, roadblocks rather than establish a line.

"Operation Michel, the 1918 German offensive?"

Hardly, a trudging series of offensives conducted on divergent axes and not coordinated in space or time.

"napoleon's treatment of Prussia in 1806 could be described as having the same post battle technique afer Jena and napoleon used cavalry."

Yes, an excellent example.

'Blitzkrieg' was attempted in Russia, but the blows just fell on thin air. The ratio of space to force was all wrong once the Germans moved into the hinterland, the Russians didn't react in the same way as the French, and the appalling 'road' network denied them the ability to strike at the vitals of the enemy state as it had done in France. It was a much more conventional operation and in many ways was almost a repeat (although somewhat more rapid) of their operations in WW1, a series of encirclement battles rather than an indirect approach to dislocate and paralyse their ability to resist.

OK, I'll argue for Norway…

Bold, imaginative plan (bordering on reckless)…

Encompassing the first true air/naval/land combined arms campaign…

Enemy reactions confused and sluggish as a result…

Short duration of campaign with decisive results.

"Encirclement or not has nothing to do with it."

What was the aim of the blitzkreig in France if not to encircle the Allied armies in the low countries?

Of course it was an encirclement. But that's not what made it a blitzkrieg. Encirclement was what they tried to do (and did). Blitzkrieg is how they did it.

"Namely, the ability to maneuver so quickly (not the same as tactical speed) that the enemy can't react in time to counter your moves."

It was not about stopping a reaction, it was about forcing situations where reactions were in the wrong place to an outdated situation.

I didn't say "stopping a reaction." I said, "… so quickly … that the enemy can't react in time …." Which is about the same as "reactions were … to an outdated situation."

The Germans would break thru an enemy line, so the enemy HQ would tell its forces to rally on a new line, but when they'd get there they'd discover that the Germans were there first, and maybe well beyond it already.

None of the above. The first true blitzkrieg campaign was Barbarossa. That's when the Germans deliberately tried to do what had happened accidentally in Poland, Norway and France.

As an example, the French campaign was based on a "sickle stroke" strategy, and no one was more surprised than they when resistance in front of them crumbled allowing Guderian, Rommel etc to disobey orders and advance to the sea in a lightning fashion. Note I say "disobey orders", as Hitler and high command were trying to slow things down rather than speed them up: hardly the essence of blitzkrieg!

VB

Blitzkrieg was not a strategy -- it was a technique!

Alistair Horne, in "To Lose a Battle," his history of the France '40 campaign, calls it a philosophy. He definitely sees the Poland campaign of 1939 as a blitzkrieg.

Even the French used the term in relation to the campaign in Poland. French General Keller, Inspector General of Tanks, wrote to then-colonel de Gaulle, during the phony war period: "Even supposing that the present fortified line were breached or out-flanked, it does not appear that our opponents will find a combination of circumstances as favourable for a Blitzkrieg as in Poland." (To Lose a Battle, p. 124).

Does any German offensive truely count as Blitzkreig, although led by armour the vast majority of the German Army went to war on foot, most transprt was horse drawn. The Panzer and Panzer Grenadiers were never fully mechanised and were really motorized.

The blitzkreig technique was to probe and penetrate the least line of resistance and to constantly shift the lines of attack and advance onto lines of little or no resistance ,bypassing any strongpoints, then exploit laterally to disrupt the lines of communications to those strongpoints. The troop type was irrelevant. Any troop type could do it. Infantry, tanks, cavalry.

France….I don't think Poland qualifies because it was attacked on three sides by Germany (from Austria, Germany proper, and Prussia. And Russian invaded Poland, too.

On the other hand, in France you saw a Germany, with fewer tanks of less quality, attack a force (UK and French) with more and better tanks. Germany won because of audacity (forget the flanks) and the integration of armor and close air support.

Of course, you have to accept the existence of Blitzkrieg as a planned-for doctrine to start with….which is questionable.

I don't think Poland qualifies because it was attacked on three sides by Germany (from Austria, Germany proper, and Prussia. And Russian invaded Poland, too.

To my knowledge, post-WWI Austria did not share a land border with Poland, there being Czechoslovakia in between.

Griefbringer

Was it Guderian who coined the term "bitzkrieg"? Perhaps in his pre-war book "Achtung Panzer!"? If so, what was HIS definition? Anyone have the book?

Martin, we're talking at cross purposes here, operationally you're quite right but tactically KevanG summarises well why I attempted (poorly) to connect the WWII blitzkrieg with its antecedents. Reading back, we're all talking about subtly different themes though!

Don – the term Blitzkrieg apparently dates back as far as von Clausewitz in the 19th century, or so I was once informed by a graduate of Sandhurst who'd studied the subject in some detail.

Poland.

Griefbringer, whoops brain-cramp on my part. I meant to say Czechoslovakia which the Germans had already occupied.